RFlt)ot{'I o\ r ltE I\Qt,tRY I\TO THE vURACII\', OF THU VOICE (]I,IPPIN(; SAID'TO BE TIIA'| OF A MI\ISI'ER OF TII[, STATE TELECAST BY },IA\GAI,A}I TELEVISIO^\ (]HAN\EI, O\ 26-3-2017 AND OTHER CO\N[,C] UD MA't"t IRS
B\ .THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY JUDGII P. S. ANI'ONY DISTRICT JLDGE (RE r l).) & FOR]\TF]R,II,D(;E. TA.}III,I' COURI'
S[,CRI] I'ARY A. (I. \'ISWA\{BIIARA\
!'ol-u],lE-t&lr REPORT
ON
THE INQUIRY INTO TEE YERACITY OF THE VOICE CLIPPING SAID To BE THAT OF A MINISTER OF THE STATE TELf,CAST BY MA}IGALAM TELEVISION CIIANNf,L ON 2GO3-2017 AIID OTIIER CONNECTf,D MATTf,RS
BY
THE COMMISSION OF INQTIIRY JUDGE P.S. ANTONY DISTRICT JUDGE (RETD.) & FORMER JUDGE. FAMILY COURT
SECRETARY A.G.VISWAMBHARAN
vo|--t
(Chapren I to 12) CONTENTS
Executive Summarl i to xiv Introduction
(D Preliminary I (ii) The Nature & Manner of Inquiry 2 (iii) The Structure & Conten8 ofthe ReDort 8
PART -I
The Circumstance Leading to the Appointment of the Commission of Inquiry
Chapter - I llaugunetion ofthe Mrngalam News Channel l0 Chapter - 2 The Ineugural Tetecast & the Voice Clipping lf Chapter - 3 The People Behind the Voice Clipping l9
3.1 Introduction l9 Apology by R. Ajithkumar 20 J.J Eight Senior editorial memben and a female joumalist 2l 3.4 The Principal Persons behind the voice Clipping 3.4.1 R. Ajithkumar 3.4.2 Sajan Varghese 24 3.4.3 R.Jayachandran 26 3.4.4 M.P. Santhosh 3.4.5 tushi K. Manoj 26 3.4.6 Lakshmi Mohan 27 3.4.7. Firoz Sali Mohammed 27 3.4.8 S.V. Pradeep 28 3.4.9 Manjith Varma 29 3.4.10 Nazila Nazimuddin 29 Chapter - 4 The Resignation of the Minister of tbe 3l State Sbri A'K. Ssseendmn
4-l Announcement of resignation 33 4.2 Why did he resign? 35
Chaapter - 5 Appointment of the Commission & Scope of the lnquiry
5 . I Appoinfirent of the Commissron 5.2 Terms of Reference 38 5.3 Scope ofthe inquiry 38
PART - II
The Inquiry & Conclusiotrs on Terms of Reference Nos I to 4
Chrpter - 6 The Inquiry 4l 6.1 Commission assumes charge 4l 6.2 Prelirninary steps for inquiry /11 6.3 History of inquiry 48
Chapter -7 Tbe Evidence of the Witnesscs Examined 55
7.1 CWI R. Ajithkurnar 55 7.2 CW3 R. J ayach andran 65 CW4 M.P. Santhosh 69 7.4 CW5 Rishi K. Manoj 7l 7.5 CW6 Lakshmi Mohan 7.6 CW7 Firoz Sali Mohamrned 75 7.7 CW8 S.V. Pradeep 7.8 CW9 Manjith Varma 77 7.9 CWl3 Sandhya S.N. 79 7.lO CWl4 Al-Neema Asharaf 80 7.ll CWl5 A.M. Yazir 83 7.12 CWIT A.K. Saseendran MLA 89 7 .13 CWl8 C. Narayan 93 7.14 CW 19 John Brittas (KTF) 93 7 .15 CW20 Secretary, Press Cotmcil of lndia 94 7.16 CW21 Shanavas A., DY.S.P. 94 7.'17 CW22 Bijumon, DY.S.P' 97 Chapter - 8 The Witnesses who did not apperr Nnd their case examined 100 8.1 CW2 Sajan Varghese 8.2 CW 10 Nazila Nazimuddin 103 8.3 CW 1l Sonia George & CWl2 DhanYa Raman lll 8.4 CW 16 Geelha Nazir tt2
Chepter - 9 The Documents produced bcfore I l5 the Commission
9.i Documents prcduced for Mangalam News Channel lls
9.2 Docurnents obtained by Commission During iocai rnspection t 16
9.3 Documents produced by CW 17 A.K. Saseendran MLA 116 9-4 Documents from CBCID I 16 9.5 Documents received from CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin t17 9.6 Documents ftom Press Council oflndia tt7 9.7 Documents ftom Milsistry of I&B, Govemment of lndia t 18
9.8 Documents fiom NBSA 118 9.9 Documents relating to cases filed before the Hon'ble High Court ll8 9.10 Other documents ll9
Chapter - l0 Locsl lmpection 120
10.1 Intoduction r20 lO.2 Report oflocal Inspeotion t21 102.f Descripti@ oflv{mgalm Office Building 123 10.2.2 Iryession of the Cmnissio t2s 10.3 Tbe object oflocal inseeclion 725 10.3-l Answ€rs to qu€$ions 126 10.4 General renar*s l3l
Chapter - 11 Argumcnts on behrlf of lte Pertics IJJ
1l.l Argument for CW 17 A.K Saseendran MLA 133 II2 Argument for CWI F.- Ajithkumar 150 I 1.3 Arguments for CW2 Sajan Varghese & Others 160 I1.4 Argunent for CW 3 R Jayachandran t64 I1.5 The contentions of Mangslan Television Chmnel joumalists 165 11.6 Statement filed on behalf of State r7l
Chapter - I 2 Conclurions on Terms of Reference Nos. I to 4 191 t 12.I Veracity ofthe voice clipping 191 12=1.1 Conclusion on terms ofre.ference No.I 219 12.2 The circumstances that led to the above mnversation 219 122-1 Conclusion on terms of refercnce No.2 229 12.3 Whether the recorded voice clipping was edited/tampered with. 229 t2-3.1 The persons who acted behrrd the voice clipping 12.3.2 Conclusion on terrns of r.:fercnce No, 3 235 12.4 Terms of refer€nce No. 4
12.4.1 Whether the act of airing oflhe voice clipping is illegal 237 12.4.2 Violation of the provisius of the Constiu.ticn 241 12.4.3 Violation of kogrmme Code 243 12.4-4 Violation of joumalirCic norms ofconduct and Code of hactice 244 12.4.5 Offences under LT. Act- 2000 245 12.4.6 Offences rmder IPC, 1860 248 12.4.7 Legal action to be taken in this case 253 12.4.8 Conclusion on terrns ofrefer€nce No.4 255
PART _ III
Inquiry into the other matters contrect€d with this Case as the Commission hes observed & Conclusion on Terms of Reference no. S
Chapter - 13 The lssues involved as observed bv the Commission 259 l3.l Introduction 259 13.2 Complaints against Mangalam Television Channel 26Q 13.3. What is the action taken? 267 13.4 Withdrawal of complaint by NMWI, Kerala 268 13.5 The issues that arise for consideration 269 present Chapter - 14 Media Law & Ethics et 271
14.1 lntroduclion 271 14.2 Constitutionalbasis 272 14.3 Regulalory Mechanism and sellregulation )14 I4.3.I In;dequate law and statutory body to regulate electronicmedia 282 14.3.2 Self-rcgulation by private electronic media 286 14.4 Broadcasting services Regulation Bill, 2006 287
Chapter - 15 Need for Enactment of Law for Regulating Private Electronic Media and machinery for Enforncement of Ethicel Standards 289
l5.l Introduction 289
Koohi30 t5.z Inadequacy of the Present law and dircctions by the Supreme Court ?90 293 I ).J Need for change in Licensing Policy '15.4 Towards & ComPrehensive LAW 298
Chapter - 16 Other Matters Observed in connection with This Case 302
l6.l Introduction 302 16.2 Invasion of Right to Privacy and Freedom of the Media 302
t6.2.1 Statement of CW I 8 General Secretary, KUWJ 304 I o.z,L Affidavit of the Secretary, Kerala Television Federation 30s
t6.2.3- Affidavit by Press Council of India 307 307 I o.,!...+. Statement of Shri-Adoor Gopalakrishnan of Dr. Sebastin Paul 308 t6.2.5. Opinion ) I O.J Joumalistic ethics and professional standards 16.3.1 The Conduct of some of the joumalists before the Commission JIf, 316 16.4 Social media and cYber crimes 318 16.5 Misuse of the freedom of the medta
16.6 Media Justice 3ZZ t6.7 The Conduct ofthe media towards the Commission 5t) 16.8. Media Education lz7 130 16.8 Code olConduct for Ministers
333 ChNpter - l7 Voice Clipping & Criminal Cases JJJ 17.1 Telecast ofthe voice cliPPing 334 17 .2 Responsibility of the State police t7 ? Progress of investigation 335
341 Ch.ptcr - 1E Conclusion on Terms of Reference No. 5 -19 Reconmendetions 348 Conclusion 353 Annexure
Annexure - [ Transcript of voice clipping 355 Annexure - II Report of EMMC, Govemment of India 358 Annexure - III Apology of R. Ajithkumar, CEO, Mangalam News Channel 363 Annexure - IV Complaint of Nazila Nazimuddin 364
Annexure - V Swom statement of Nazila Nazimuddin 370 Annexure VI Face Book post of Nazila Nazimuddin 374 Annexure - VII Daily lndian Herald Online dated 16.08.2017 375 Annexure - VIll e-mail message of A.M. Yazir 380 Annexure - IX Call Details Records & Maps 382 Annexure - X Code of Practice ofNBA 392 Annexure -XI Statistics of cyber crimes 398 Abbreviations 399 Reference 400 Acknowledgments
!{)'
,5\K'Kochi-30 Executive Summary
Govemment of Kerala appointed Judge P.S. Antony Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into a defnite matter of public importance, namely, the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State telecast by Mangalam Tefevision Channel on 26.03.2017 and coffrected matters with the following terms of reference:-
(i) To inquire into the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State telecasted by Mangalam television channel on 26.03.2017; (ii) To inquire into the circumstances that led to the above conversation; (iii) To inquire into as to whether the recorded voice clipping was edited or tampered \ffith mala fide intentions, and as to who have acted behind that (iv) To inquire into as to whether the act of airing the voice clipping is illegal and it involves illegal activities or conspiracies and if so, the legal action to be taken in this regardi
(v) To inquire into the other matters connected
with this case and the Commission observes.
After the inquiry the Commission reached the following conclusions on the above terms ofreference:- I (i) . ;l . l'l I'! .: -. (ll ) Conclusion on terms of reference No. (i)
The veracity ofthe voice clipping said to be tlat ofa Minister of the Srate telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 is not proved. The voice clipping is a product of criminal conspiracy to create a shocking news on the launching day of the new Channel to boost its ratins.
Conclusion on Terms of Reference No. (ii)
The circumstances that led to the conversation, that is the voice clipping, is the criminal conspiracy of the Mangalam Television channel managernent to make a shocking news to Kerala leading to the resignation of a Minister of the State so as to achieve top rating for the channel on the darc of its inausuration itself.
Conclusion on terms of reference No. (iii)
The recorded voice clipping was edircd or tampered with mala fide intentions and the product of criminal conspiracy and forgery to create a shocking news regarding a Minister of the State leading to his resignation so as to gain high rating and popularity for the Mangalam Television channel on the date of its inauguration iself.
The following persons have direct involvement in the making of the voice clipping:-
1 ,il i iilr (iiD
1) CWI R. Ajithkumar 2) CW3 R. Jayachandran 3) CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin
CW 8 S-V. Pradeep has active involvernent in the telecast of tne voice clipping on 26-03.2017 along with CW I R. Ajithkumar.
The role of the following persons in the telecast of the voice clipping has !o be ascertained by the police during investigation-
l) CW4 M.P. Santhosh 2) CW5 Rishi K. Majon 3) CW6 M. Lakshmi Mohan 4) CW7 Firoz Sali Mohammed 5) CW9 Manjith Varma.
CW 2 Sajan Varghese is the Director/Chairman of the Company which owns the Mangalam Television channel and also involved rn the affairs of the Channel. Thercfore he has abetted the crimes committed by other accused in the making and telecast ofthe voice clipping on 26.03.2017.
Conclusion on terms of reference No. (iv)
The act of airing the voice clipping was the culmination of a well planned criminal conspiracy and therefore is illegal and it involved illegal activities including . t. i ,r t, I i:l.'t \J.t'i l- (iu)
Violations ofthe provisions of the Constitution under Article l9(2\,2l and 5l -A (e). Violation ofthe Programme Code prescribed under
Rules 6( I {a), 6( I )(d), 6( I {o) and 6 (s) prescribed
under the Cable Television Network Rules, I 994. Violation of norms ofjoumalistic conduct of PCI
and Code ofPractice adopted by NBA for self-regulation.
Offences punishable under section 67 and 67 A, 84 B and S. 85 of the I.T. Act 2000. Offences committed under various Sections of IPC
punishable under Sections 1 09, 1 20 8, 201, 294, 463, 464,469,470 and 471 ofthe IPC, 1860. Offence punishable under Section 182 ofthe IPC against CW I R Ajithkumar.
The legal action to be taken in this regard are given in the recommendations below.
Conclusions on Terms of Reference No. (v)
On the basis of the terrns of reference Nos. (i) to (iv), inquiry conducted and the documents produced before the Commission and fie d invasion ofRight to Privacy ofcitizens the extent of freedom of media as a whole measures to prevent the misuse ofthe fieedom ofthe media questions of joumalistic ethics and professional standard This Commission has observed that the followins matters are comected with this case:- l) Media law is necessary for the purpose of preserving freedom of the media" enforcement of the rights of the people and regulate the limctioning of the media institutions while media ethics is necessary for self-regulation. 2) There is a specific law, that is, Press Council Acq 1978 and a statutory body, that is, the Press Council of India for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the kess and of maintaining and improving the standards ofnews papers and news agencies in lndia' 3) There is no specific law and no statutory My to regulate the private electronic media and for maintaining and improving the standards of private electronic/broadcast media. 4) The Press Council has no jurisdiction over the electronic media. 5) The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 are not effective to regulate the private electronic media. There is no effective machinery at the level of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to discipline the lr, i rll.r '-J -il,-1. (vi) erring private electronic media which violates the Programme Code rmder Rule 6 of the CTN Rules. 1994 unlike S. 14 ofthe Press Council Act, 1978 and a statutory body like Press Council of India. 6) Ministry of lnformation and Broadcasting, Government of India closed the complaints against the Mangalam Television Channel which telecast the voice clipping in violation of the Programme Code under Rule 6 of CTN Rules, 1994 without conducting any inquiry and without notice to the complainants. 7) There is no effective machinery for self-regulation in private electronic media. Though NBA published a Code of Practice in 2008 and set up NBSA, to look into complaints only relating to the content shown by the member channels of NBA, the Mangalam Channel not being a member ofthe NBA, no action was taken on the complaints received against Mangalam Television Channel. Membership of NBA is not made mandatory for new channels. 8) lnsufficiency of the present law has been taken note of by the Supreme Court and there are directions to enact a comprehensive law to regulate electronic media as reported in (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 16l and (201 l) 13 Supreme Court cases 155. 9) In U.K. there is a comprehensive law to regulate the electronic media. ' Communications Act, 2003 is an Act to confer functions of the Office of Communications, to make provision about tne regulation of the provisions of electronic communications, networks and services and of the use of the electro-magnetic spectrum; to make provision about tlre regulation of broadcasting and of the 1 ,/l, I ,JI .L (vii) provision of television and radio services; to make provision about mergers involving newspaper and other media enterprises etc. By virtue of rhis Act all the firnctions in par with the above objectives transferred and assigned to office of communications - OFCOM. l0) In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court refered to above, the Union Govemment shall seriously consider the enactment of a comprehensive law repealing the Indian Telegra.ph Act, 1885, The lndian Wireless Telegraphy Ac! 1933, The CTN (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Telecom Regulatory Acl 1997 on the model of Communications Act, 2003 of U.K- under which the office of communications C'OFCOIW) is the regulatory body for the broadcast media. I l) The Union Govemment can also consider converting the Press Council as a Media Council with sufficient teeth as suggested by Justice Markandey Katju when he was the Chairman of the Press Council of India- This can be easily done by amending the Press Council Act, 1978 by the Parliament renaming it as Media Council Act to cover the electronic/broadcast media. 12) There was violation of Right to Privacy which is declared as a fundamental right of the individual to be let alone in the telecast of a part ofthe conversation said to be that of a Minister ofthe State. The act was also not in keeping with joumalistic ethics and nrofessional standards. ,'l Uilr : (viii) 13) There is misuse of the fieedom of the media which is an industry violating joumalistic ethics and professional standards' Broadcasting has become a crowded market place where news channels vie with one another for viewers bringing down the standard ofjoumalistic ethics to rock bottom. l4) The unbridled freedom exercised by the media interferes with enforcement of law and order and adminishation of justice tlnough media trial. l5) There is a necessity for a change in the licensing policy of the Union Govemment in respect of private electronic,/broadcast media. As the audio visual media market has become crowded resulting in unhealthy competition and lowering of standards of programme, the number of news channels in regionaVvemacular languages should be restricted. The policy can be on the basis of the population strength of a particular State or language along with other parameters to be decided by the Govemment considering the interest of the State and the society under Act l9(2) of the Con stituti on. 16) There are serious omissions in the investigation of the criminal cases registered in connection with the telecast of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State. There is unexplained delay in questioning the prime accused who admittedly recorded the conversation. The stat€ment of former Minister A.K. Saseendran is not yet recorded. (ix) 17) The Mangalam News Channel also committed cyber crimes by posting the voice clipping in the Face Book and you Tube. l8) Therc is necessity for amending Section 294 of IpC, 1860 as . the present Section does not include the word broadcast' so as to cover specifically the offence ofarmoyance caused by broadcast of obscene acts, words, songs etc., through electronic media. 19) Kerala tops in cyber crimes. There is necessity for cyber crimes division at least at the district level manned by police personal with special training in the prevention and investigation of cvber crimes- 20) There is also necessity for a Special Court for the expeditious disposal ofcyber crime cases. 2l) Therc is a necessity for revamp of media education in Kerala. The Govemment can take initiative to encourage joumalism with r€sponsibility and accountability by encouraging the media educetion at the school level onwards. The media houses should be persuaded to follow ethical joumalism. The Kerala Media Academy can be pressed into service for raising the awareness level with regard to ethical joumalism. 22) There is a necessity for a Code of Conduct for the Ministers of the State./the Union in general and especially in dealing the with t I t\ 't I t (x) joumalistJmedia for the efficient and effective fimctioning of the democratic system of Govemment. The Commission has made the following recommendations for the purpose of taking action. Recommendations of the Commission l) The Govemment may forward a copy of this Report to the Secretary, Ministry of lnformation and Broadcasting Govemment of lndia with a recommendation to reopen the complaint file against the Maqalam Television channel for appropdate action including cancelling its broadcasting licence or permission to run lhe visual charmel- ,)\ A copy of this Report may be forwarded to the Press Council of India for infonnation and necessary action. )) The absence of self-regulation in the management of Mangalam Television channel and non-membership in the NBA by Mangalam Television channel should also be brought to the notice of the Ministry of Information and Bmadcasting. 4) The Mangalam Television channel and the company which owns the channel and the persons behind the making and telecast of the voice clipping shall be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 67,67A,U B and S. 85 of I.T. Ac! 2000 and under Sections 109, 120 B,201,294,463, 464, 469, 470 utd 471 of the IPC before the 1, r\'lI '.,.1 Ii" '.. (xi) competent court after expediting the investigation on the basis of the two crimes already registered. I 5) CW I R. Ajithkumar is liable to be prosecuted s€parately for offence gmishable under section 182 ofthe Indian penal Code. 6) There are serious omissions in investigation as discussed in Chapter 17.3 of this report. SPC, Kerala may be directed to take steps to complete the investigation of the criminal cases regist€red in connection with the telecast of the voic.e clipping and the criminal conspiracy behind it including its political dimension etc. , ifany. 7) A Special Court for the trial of cyber crime cages in the rank of an Additional Chief Judicial Magishate shall be created and established at Ernakulam, Kochi which tops in cyber crime cases, for the expeditious fial of the accused in this case. This Court shall be allowed to continue as a Special Court for the trial of cyber crime cases in view of the increasing trend in ryber crime cases in Kerala. 8) A cyber crirnes division in police nay be formed at l€ast at the district level manned by police persormel with special qualification and training for the prevantion and investigation of cyber crime cases. e) In view of the absencc of an effective and comprehensive law to regulate the private el€ctronic/broadcast medi4 the Govemment of Kerala may request the Union Govemment to enact such a law Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, The Indian Wireless I t,.4 , .tI (xii) Telegraphy Act, 1933, The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and The Telecom Regulatory Ac! 1997 on the model ofthe Communications Act, 2003 of UK under which the office of Comrnunications ('OFCOM) is the regulatory body for the broadcast media. 10) In the altemative to a comprehensive law, for the time being, the Central Govemment may be requested to consider converting t}te present Press Council as a Media Council to cover the private electronic media with sufficient teeth as suggesled by Justice Markandey Katju when he was the Chairman of the Press Council of India, by suitably amending the Press Council Act, 1978 by the Parliament and renaming it as Media Council Act to cover the electronic/broadcastine media also. I I ) While forwarding a copy of this report to the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, the observations of this Commission il Chapter 19 regarding Media and Media Ethics may also be brought to the notice of Ministry of Information & Bmadcasting for necessary action. l2) A Code of Conduct should be fiamed for the Ministers of the State in general and especially in dealing with the joumalistVmedia. 13) Kerala State Legislature may pa:is a resolution asking the Central Govemment for enactment of necessary law for regulating the I il I ; ! !./,'l I )', - l (xiiD private electronic/broadcast media in execution of Recommendation No. (9) above as the subject 'broadcasting and other like forms of communication' is included in Entry 3l in the List I - Union List. 14) State Legislature may amend S. 294 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 as follows:- a) Insert a new clause, "( c ) broadcast though audio visual media or any electronic device any obscene act, scene, song or words", b) for the words " which may extend to three months", substitute the words "which may extend to 3 years" c) At the end of the present S. 294 IPC, add an explanation as fiollows, "Explanation - mere airing or broadcasting is sufficient to constitute the offence". 15) The Govemment can take initiative to encourage joumalism with responsibility and accountability by intrcducing media education at the school level onwards so as to make the young gen€ration aware of the benefrts and perils of using the media and especially the social media. The media houses should be persuaded to follow ethical joumalism. The Kerala Media Academy can be pressed into service for raising the awareness level with regard to ethical joumalism. All the joumalists should undergo an annual refresher course in media law and ethics as part of a Continuing Media {xlv t Education (CME) to be conducted by the Kerala Media Academy as a precondition for renewal ofaccreditation on an annual basts' 16) It is l€ft open to the Govemment to take appropriate decision and take steps to realise liquidated damages fiom tlre Company G'N' lnfo Media Private Limited which owns the Mangalam Television Channel and the persons directly liable for the telecast of the false news (voice clipping) and causing breach ofpublic order and loss to public exchequer in accordance with law. {)Yt INTRODUCTION l. Preliminary On 26.03.2017 a new Television Channel, namely, Mangalam Television Channel at Trivandrum aired its inaugural programme starting from 10 AM. During the news programme on the subject of 'safeqr of women', a voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State was telecast after the presentation of the anchor, CW6 Lakshmi Mohan that a Minister of the State engaged in a sleazy talk poor with a widow who approached him for some help. The voice clipping consisted of only the male voice uttering obscene words. After airing the voice clipping the Thiruvananthapuram correspondent of the Mangalam Television Channel came on live tlrmugh telephone reporting that the voice belonged to Shri A.K. Saseendran (CWl7), Minister of the State for Transport- Scrolls also appeared on the screen that the Minister concemed was Shri A.K. Saseendran. On that day Shd A.K. Saseendran was aftending public function ar Kozhikode. On coming to lcrow of the br€aking news in the Television Channels on him, he cancelled his programmes and announced his resignation from the Council of Ministers at about 3 p.m. at a Press Meet convened by him. He denied the allegations against him. He stated that he resigned because he did not want to be the butt of ridicule by clinging on to the ministerial post in the context of allegations. ..1 He funher stated, knew a new Malayalam Channel was launching its operation on Sunday, but never had any idea I will be the subject of its launch exclusive. I am ready to face any probe as I have not committed the mistake as alleged by the Channel,, (As 2 reported in Indian Exprcss dated 27 -03.2017'). His resignation was accepted on the same day. On27.03.2017,rhe Govemment declared a judicial probe into the matter. The willingness to head the Commission of Inquiry was ascertained liom me on 28'03'20l7 On 29.03-2017 the Cabinet meeting took the decision to appoint this Commission of Inquiry under the Comrnissions of Inquiry Act' 1952 for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public impoftance, namely, the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of State t€lecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017. The Govemment issued Notification No' 29870/SSA2/2017/Home dated 31.03.2017 appointing the Commission of lnquiry with the following terms of reference :- i. To inquire into the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State tetecast€d by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 : ii. To ioquire into thc circumstancas that led to tbe above conversation ' iii. to inquire into as to whether the rccorded voice clipping was edited or tatnp€red wirh mala fide intentions' and as to who have acted bchind thar : iv. To inquirc into as to whether thc act of airing thc voice clippiDg is the illegal and it involves illegal acrivities or conspiracies and if so' legal action to be taken in this regstd ; v. To inquire into the oiher matte$ comected with this case as the Comrnission obsewes. taking On 03.04.2017, this Commission assumed charge and started steps for the functioning of the Commission' 2. The nature and manner of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. A Commission of lnquiry is appointed under section 3 of the issions of lnquiry Act, 1952 by the appropriate Govemment 3 fbr the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and within such time as may be specified in the notification. This Commission was appointed to inquire into the definite matter of public imponance which are specified in the terms of reference mentioned above. The Commission was initially appointed for a period of three months. Lat€r the Govemment decided to extend the term of Commission for a period of three months fiom 01.07.2017 and consequently amended the original notification as per Notification No. 29780/SSA2/2017/Home dated 01-07 .2017 and thereafter the term was firther extended to complete the inquiry and submit the report. The question whether this Commission of Inquiry was appointed into any definite matter of public importance was raised by the management of the Mangalam Television Channel twice before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Fintly, in the criminal iurisdiction in B.A. Nos. 2378, 2379, 2380, 2539 md 254012O17 before the High Court of Kerala filed by Sajan Varghese, Chairman and R. Ajithkumar, C.E.O. of Mangalam Television Channel and other staff ofthe Television Charmel who are accused in the connected criminal cases. Their contention was that the "registration of the crime ts entirely for political consideration. The Govemment have already annormced the conduct of a judicial inquiry though no matter of public importance is involved- This steps aPP€ars to be purely politically motivated and not in public interest". This contention was not considered by the Hon'ble High Court while denying bail to some of the accused as per order dated 12.04-2017 . In WP@ No. 21095/2017(J) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Sajan Varghese, Director, G.N' Infomedia hivate Limit€4 which owns the Mangalam Television Channel challenged the competency of the State of Kerala to appoint the Commission of Inquiry and also on the ground of public importance. The petitioner contended as follows : "The case of the petitioner is that the appropriate Govemment under the Act for ordering an inquiry into a matter which was telecast is the Central Govemment and thercfore, Ext.P6 notification is one issued without jurisdiction. It is also the case of the petitioner that an inquiry can be ordered under the Act only into a definite matter of public importance and the matters in respect ofwhich the inquiry is ordered in tenns of Ext. P6notification are not matters of public importance. Ext. P6 notification isunder challenge in the writ petition on the aforesaid grorurds". The respnndents were Union of Indi4 State of Kerala and p.S. Antony Commission of Inquiry respectively. After considering the contentions of both parties, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition. It is held as follows:- "As noted above, there is n o dispute to the fact that the convenation which was telecast in the rtews channel is a conversation involving sexual connotalions and the substance of the conversation was such that the Minister had to resisn on account of the lelecasl of the said audio clip. The tibeny whlch is enjoyed by the media is pall of the ftecdom of sp€ech and expression guaranteed under Article l9(lxa) of the Constitution. Therc cannot be any doubt thaf the fteedom of soeech and expression guaranteed under the said Article i. nor an absolute right and the same does not include the risht to tell the people what they do not want to hear . If th; conlents ol the audio clip which was telecast are somethinc which would disturb or allect rhe lempo of rhe life of rhe corimunity or rhe tranquillity of the so€iety, it is a matter conceming public order_ Kochi-30 5 Such a view hrs been talen hy the Apex Court in Ktuu Biswas v. Sr.t€ of W.B. [(1972)3 SCC 831]". Par&grrpb ? of thc arid judgment rerds ahw : "7. The question whether a man has or,ly committed a breach of law and orde. or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public ordet according to the dictum laid down inthe above case, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. Public order is what the French call "order publique" and is something more than ordinary mainte-nance of law and order. The test to oe adopted in determining whethe, an act affects law and orderor public order, as laid down in the above case, is: Does lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leavinS the tranquillity of the society undisturbed?" ldentical is the view taken by the Apex Court in Subramanian v.State of T.N. [(2012]4 SCC 6991 also. Paragraph 15 ofthe saidjudgment reads thus : "15. The next contentioo of behalf of the detenu. assai- ling thc detention order on the plea tbal there is a difference b€tween "law and order" and "public order" carutot also b€ sustained since this Coud io a series of decisions rgcognised that public order is the eveD tempo of life of the community laking the couffy as a whole or even a sp€cified locality. lvide PushpadeviM, Jatia v. M.L.Wadhawan ISCC paras ll&14: Ram Manohar t,ohia v. State of Bihar !: Union of lndia v. AwindShergill I SCC para 4 & 6; Suoil Fulchand Shah v.Union of India J SCC para 28 (Constitution Bcnch);Commr. ofPolice v. C Aaitha 5, SCC paras 5,7 & 131". "Public ordcr is a mattcr which comes under Enfy I of List I I of lhe ?d Schedule. As noted above' Entry 3 I of List I of the 7m schedule deals with '-Posts and telegraphs: telephones, wireless, b.oadcasting and other like lbms of communication". The said enties essentia.lly deal with rhe licensing of telecasting and 6 other righb. None of the maners sought to be inquired into in lc.ms of Ert. P6 norification falls, therefore under Entr] 3l ol List l.'lhe issue is therelbre, answered against the petitioncr. 7. The next issue is whether the matters included irl Ext. p6 notification ate lnatteB of public importance. I have already held that the inquiry is into a matter relating to public order. A mafier rclating to public order is cenaiDly a matter of public importaDce. Ihis issue is also, in the said circumstances, answereq against the pelitioner'.. l'hus it is already found that the Commission of Inquiry is duly constituted as per law and that a definite matter of public importance is involved. -In an inquiry conducted urder the Comnissions of Inquiry Act. therc ,l.hat is no accuser, no accused, no plainti{fand no dcfendant. is to say there is no /is be fore the Cormission. I he Commission does not conclude an inquiry by pronouncing a Judgment in the legal sens€ of the term. The task beforc rne Commissioo is collection of facts and material on the subiect retbned to it and submit irs repon with recommendation to lhc apprcpnate Govcmment. The Government may or may nol take any action oD the repoi. It is for the appropriate Covernment ro decide what action, if any, is required to be taken on the report. Thus the inquiry under the Act is inquisirorial and nor accusarorial". (page 60, The Commission oflnquiry Act, 1952 A Critical Analysis, Edition 20ll by B.M. prasad & M:urrsh Mohan) In R. Balakrishna pillai v. State of Kerala a full Bench of Kerala High Court held as follows: "...it is evident that the purpose ofan rs9!! enquiry unders.3 of the Commissions of 6l-la Inquiry Act is only to enable the Government to :J(r'"r,i-so ){ Vr-\.---(9 / Bather fads or information., Ihe information can be obtained o. gathered in any manner. The proceedings before . Commission is not judicial or guosi-iudicial. tt is only a fact_finding authortty The enquiry is done or made to reach an uhimate administrative decision". It was further observed : "It carurot be denied that the appointment of a Comrnission under S. 3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act is generally irnpelled by a desire to set uD and maintain high standard of moral conduct in public life and administration. This is a welcome step to maintain high standard in public life. It is definitely a maner which will result in cleanliness of public life in which the public arc vitally interested". Lord Denning was appointed to inquire into the scandal relating to John Profumo, British Secretary of Stare for war on 04.06.1963. In the introduction of Lord Denning's report, he has expressed his views regarding the nature of the inquiry and the prowen conferred upon him under the Tribunals oflnquiries Ac! 1921 as follows:- "The appointment of a tribunal rmder rhe Tribunals of lnquiries Act, 1921, is an elaborate and costly machine, equipped with all the engines of the law - counsel, solicitors, witnesses on oatlL absolute privilege, openDess to tbe public (so far as possible) and comrnittal for contempt - but it suffers fiom the invincible draw- back, in doing justice, thaf therc is no prosecution, no charge and no defence". The above observation is relevant as the Indian Act of 1952 is modelled on the British Act of 1921. @c,ax r-r'/' \"t) Es(roct )'{l '-lo i*- 8 to its role as In short, lhe scoPe of a Commission of Inquiry is limited of a Commission a fact finding authority. The utility and importance Krishna Dalmia of Inquiry was stressed by the Suprerne Court in Ram following words: v. Justice S.R Tendolkar (AIR 1958 SC 538) in the "ln our view th€ recorDmendatiotrs of a Commission ol t4ulry are of great importance to the Govenunent in order to enable it to make up its mfud as to what legislative or evil admiDistative messures should b€ adoded to emdicate the found or to implement the beoeficial objects it has in vie$'' from the Print As part of the inquiry, this Commission has considered the inpus witnesses examined by and Elecbonic media, social medi4 the evidence of the the Commission affidavits and statements filed by some of the witnesses and liom various experts, docunents produced by witnesses ard documents obtaitled inspection sources by the Commission. The Commissiotr also conducted a local of the oftice and studio of Mangalam Television Cbannel at Thiruvananthapuram and as to have a first hand experience of rhe functioning ofa Television channel to how a news programme is telecasl. 3. Thc Structur€ & Co|rtents oftbe Report Following the tems of refercnce, the Commission has prepared lhis report dividing ir into 3 Parts. ln lhe first pari, the cimmslances leading to thd appointme of the Commission of lnquiry arc considered. Second Pai of the report consists of the details of the inquiry conducted and conclusions reached by the CorDmission on terms ofrcference Nos. {i) to (iv)' 'Itild part of th€ report deals wirh the details of i4uiry into the other matters connected wilh this case as the Corunission has observed and answer to tefins of reference No.5 Finally, the Commission has given recommendations for consideiation arld nec€ssary action by the Govemment. (v PART I THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE coMMrssloN oF INQUTRY f*re f:% 10 CHAPTER I The Inauguration of the Mangdsm Television Channel l. Mangalam Television Channel I A perusal of the statements filed by CWl Aiithkumar, C.E.O of Mangalam Television Channel, CW2 Sajan Varghese, Chairman, the documents produced by them and copy of case diary produced by the police in the conneced criminal cases and the information gathered from Web page of Mangalam, i.e. www.mangalam.com gives the following picture of the Mangalam group of business and its publications and the launching of the Mangalam Television News Channel- Mangalam Weekly was started by lat€ M.C. Varghese, father of CW2 Sajan Varghese in 1969 at Kottayam. It competed with Malayala Manorama Weekly published fiom Kottayam and captured the larye slice of readers thmugh romantic novels and stories and often spicy items in the weekly. Mangalam Daily was started in 1989 by late M.C. Varghese. In 1993 Mangalam was registered as a company. Thercafter the Mangalam group had a spectacular growth in different fields of business including, Mangalam Hospitals (P) Limited, Mangalam Diagnostic Research Centre, Mangalarn Confectionary (P) Limited, Mangalam Residential High School, Mangalam College of Engineering, Mangalam B.Ed. College etc. Mangalam Television Channel is the laiest addition to this group of business. After the demise of M.C. Varghese, CW2 Sajan Varghese became the M.D. of the Mangalam Group of Publications. Sabu Varghese, Saji Varghese, Biju Varghese, brothers of Sajan Varghese are the Directors. The Registercd Office of the Company is at Kottayam. During 2006 Mangalam Telecasting India (Pvt.) Limited was registered with the object of starting a Television News Charmel. Mangalam Television is the latest Malayalam Language News Channel which started functioning in 2016 and it was formally inaugurated by Shri Pinarayi Vijayan, Chief Minister of Kerala at a colourful fimction on 6' March, 2Ol7 and is inaugural broadcast of news was on 26b March,2017. Malayala Manoram4 Mathrubhumi, Kerala Kaumudi, Madhyamam etc. are the other print medias which had started Television Channel. Therefore Mangalam Television Channel had to f'ace tough competition from other Malayalam News Channels. lndia Vision, one of the first news channel from Kerala had to stop functioning. Asianet News, Manorama News, Mathrubhumi News, Kairali People T.V., Media One, Reporter T.V' etc. are the popular Malayalam News Channels. Flowen T.V. and News 18 Kerala are the later additions to the Malayalam language News channels. It was against the backdrop of proliferating language News channels and in a highly competitive media indusry, Mangalam Television Channel was inaugurated. Naturally, the Mangalam Television News Channel wanted a 'lightening and explosive launching of news broadcast'. The launching of the Mangalam News Channel was the culmination of several yean of planning' The ides of staning a chamel was that of R. Ajithkumar, C.E.O of Mangalam Daily. He was entnrsted wit}l the task of starting the channel. They undersood that it was difficult to get a new licence fiom the Central Broadcasting Ministry and that it was very expensive to get a new license. Therefore' they decided to Durchase the license of an existing Television Channel' Through 6t*,q* l9/ \t d -l--^xr-eOli rl 12 brokers Ajithkumar negotiated and purchased the license of G.N. lnfomedia Privale Limited in New Delhi. As per statement given to the police an amount ofRs. 2.5 crores was paid to purchase the above company. At the time of purchase, G.N. lnfomedia was running 24x7 local charmel and Whistle Television, an entertaiffnent channel. The company G.N. Infomedia Private Limited was purchased in the name of Mangalam Telecasting Private Limited and one Gautham Sarkar, said to be a businessman from West Bengal, in tle month February, 2016 in the proportion of 60 : 40%. This is as per the statement given to the police by CW2 Sajan Varghese. But, as per the statement filed by CWI R. Ajithkumar and CW2 Sajan Varghese before the Commission in answer to the questions issued by tle Commission, the capital of the company is Rs. 4,63,71,000/- by way of issued, subscribed and paid up capital- As answer to question No. 7, as to from whom and how much is the share capital raised. it is stated as follows:- Mangalam Telecasing India : Rs.3,13,03,000/- Private Limited Gautham Sarkar : Rs. 1,50,68,000A Total : Rs.4,63,71,0001 But, initial investrnent for the new chamel was said to be Rs. 32 Crores as per the online information from http://www.desktracking. com. Anyhow, it can be concluded that a much g€ater investment tlan stated by CWl, CW2 to tlre police and before the Comission has been made to launch the news channel. According to the statement given by CW2 Sajan Varghese to the police he has no ac4uaintance with Gautham Sarkar, onlv CWI R. r Ajithkumar has acquaintance with him. At present CW2 is Chairman (with effect from 16.02.2016) and R. Ajittrkumar (fiom 16.02.2016) is the Managing Director and C.E.O. of G.N. Informedia private Limited. However, from the signatory details filed before the Commission on 25.08.2017 it is seen that Sajan Varghese is the Director and R. Ajithkumar is the Managing Director of the Company. As per statement filed by CWI R. Ajithkumar and CW2 Sajan Varghese, Mangalam Television Channel is the brand name of the news channel owned by G.N. lnfomedia private Limited. The company was incorporated on 18.03.2009 and having its registered office at 903, 9s floor, Inderprakas Building, Brakhamba Roa{ Connought Place, New Delhi - ll0 001. The object of the company is to carD. on the business of IpTV (Interna protocol Television) and to establish new Satellite Channels and to work as news agency giving all types of news thrcugh elechonic and print media ( Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association are produced). There are 84 employees in the Company. A list of the employees has been fi.led before the Commission. When required to fumish the amount of salary or emoluments paid to each of the staffor employee as per question No. 14 in the questionnaire, CWI R. Ajithkumar and CW2 Sajan Varghese gave only a cry?tic answer that staff of the company are adequately remunerated. When required to fumish the previous experience of the staffemployee in their respective field or area of employment as per question No. 15, again a vague answer is given that all staff have required work experience in Television joumalism. Regarding the broadcasting licence of Mangalam Television Charurel and the name oflicence holder as per question No. 16, it is stated that the communication fiom the Ministrv of 14 Information & Broadcasting evidencing the renewal of the license of the channel is produced before the Commission. From a perusal of the documents produced, it is seen that an amount ofRs. 5,00,000/- towards permission fee of Television channels for down linking from India for the period from 27 .10.2016 ro 26.10.2017 was remitted on 10.02.2017. Regarding the date of commencement of broadcast by the Mangalan Television Channel as per question No- 17, it is stated that the Mangalam Charmel had commenced the broadcast of Malayalan Television programmes about five months prior to the date of inauguration of the channel on 2 6.03 -2017 . As answer to question No. 18 whether Mangalam Television Channel adheres to any code of ethicVcanons ofjoumalism followed in news telecast, it is answered as follows:- "I1 is adhering to the code of ethics of electronic joumalism thar the channel has aired its prograurmes. The authenticity and credibitity ofrhe news item is rhoroughly scrutinized and only in casc the editorial board is convinced of the news item, the progmrnme is telecasted. The ethical guidelines issued by tbe Nationat Broadcasting Associalion Guidelines are scrupulously followed in the telecast. The univeFal safeguard that the source of the Dews item is not disclosed is followed at all times''. 6r*% i-(x."nr-.0)-(, wx_^67 CHAPTER 2 The Inaugural Telecrst on 26.032017 and tbe Voice Clipping In the words of CW2 Sajan Varghese as stated in pamgraph 2 of Memorandum of Writ Petition (Civil) N o. 71095/17 filed before the Hon'ble HiSh Cout of Kerala: *That on 26.03.2017, a live discussion was conducted in ihe studio of the said "Mangalam" Television in a show titled 'Sthrce Suralha" at around l0p.m. That around 3 to 4 lady panelliss were pres€nt for the said live discussion and during the course of the discussiorq an audio clip featuring the voice ofa Minister of State a.ud a lady was telecasl The contents of the audio clip contained conversations of sexual connotations which created a furorc in thc news circles and in the lighr ofthe said audio clip, lhe mid Minister tendered his resienation". On 26.03.2017 CW6 Lakshmi was the News Reader. CW6 st ted that tire programme staded with news at l0 A.M. A panel discussion on the subject of Women's safety was part of the news programme which was to continue till 12.30 p.m. CWl l Sonia George, CWl2 Dhanya Raman and CWl3 Sandhya S.N., social activists were the members of the panel. About ll A.M- the breaking news was given. It was announced by CW6 that the Mangalam Television Channel was now going to broadcast a startling news for Kerala. After the said announcement, the audio clipping was broadcast. According to CW6 it was an obscene talk which she did not want to hear as an individual and it is difficult for her to say it before the Commission. The ffRao E\r."r'i roi^9 15 transcript of the voice clipping produced during inquiry by CW2l Shanavas, Dy S.P. who is the main investigating officer in the connected criminal cases, is given as Annexure - I to this report. After the broadcast of the voice clip, it was announced by CW6 Lakshmi Mohan that Shri A.U. Renjith fiom their News Desk is joining to give more details. Renjith appeared and gave the name of the owner of the voice as the Minister of State Shd A.K. Saseendran and also stated that it was a sleaze talk nade by the Minister to a poor widow who approached the Minister for some assistance. This intbrrnation was also given as a scroll in the Television. Therealier CW6 received instruction from the console to start discussion on thrs subject. On hearing the voice clipping one of the panellists Dhanya Raman (CWl2) was covering her face with embarrassment and the other two were coverins their ears. When CW6 anchor conveyed the discomfort of the gu€sts to the console through the talkbach r}Ie insfuction from the console was to continue the programme, but to minimise the embarrassment to the guests the audio speaker in the studio was made silent from the console. CWl3 Surdhya stated before the Commission that they wanted to leave the studio, but it was difficult to walk out as the anchor's seating was in front of the main door. To the Deccan Chronicle Daily correspondent, CWl3 state4 " I too was tempted to walk out ofthe studio, but then felt that it would send out wrong message of escapism. However, I made my point clear by asking the anchor whether it was the way the topic on women safety has to be discussed. I felt that they were trying to sensationalise the whole". CWll Soniya George, who is the Secretary of Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA) said the women were invited to speak on women safety. ..The anchor, Lakshrni Mohan, discussed with us the rise of atrocities against women in society till I I a.m. Then the anchor told us that there will be breaking news at I I a.m. and when we asked her the topic, she feigned ignorance. Once they started airing tle audio clip, I felt hugely humiliated. In fact now I regret that I did not get out fiom there. I was aghast when the anchor repeatedly requested the viewers that they should not let children listen to the audio clip (Deccan Chronicle Daily dated 30.03.201 7). The Channel aired this audio recording 18 times on the same day as noted by the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting), Govemment of India. Report of EMMC is given as Annexure -II. This report contains an English translation ofthe voice clipping as follows:- "Now I am in Coa for Etection Work. I thoughr that my girl forget me, qot cillitlg me, I kissing me, huggrng me. Tightly hug me and lay on my chest. Oh my cirl, hold me tightly and comfortably lay on, few minutes morc, put your Ac€ on by chest, let me cuddle you. Oh my kitty, oh my sweetie, what do you want my sweetie, bit ir and eat it, I like it very much. Why you biting like this? (Makes kissing sound) Did you get it? Tell me my beautiful, do you \€nt Eore? R€move your clotheq I wanl to see your chest and bunocks. Let m€ see breasts and buttocks. h is your brcasls....it is your buttocks remove your clothes and le1 me see your breasts and buttocks..... and lay on my chest- Kiss me lbrvendy. I will hold your buttocks tightly and you kiss all parts of my body. Let me put my gun (privato port) on your brcasts, your body and b€tween thighs. sw€€tie, hug me tightly aDd keep my private pan between your thighs then push it inside you. Oh....horr good is this feeling !! (He makes some sensual noises). Kit1y...... lhere is no chance todo it now...... then I will bend you over, kiss your br€3sts, bite your 1a buttocks and I will try to push tr|y private part in between your buttocks. Lie on your back spread yourthighs,let me put it inside and prDh it slowly... then fuck me quickly and ertertain me. Then let's hug and lie down, and after some time,let's do itagai[....-.... again. . - . . . and again. . -do it ten times (Makes kissing sound)" 4*% vx-;tX-lKocbi-30113 CEAPTER 3 The People Behind The Voice Clipping 3.1 Introduction Who are the people behind the voice clipping said to be that ofthe Minister of the State telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.20t7 7 The answer is given by R Ajithkumar, the Managing Editor , C.E.O. and Chief Editor of the Mangalan Television Channel. Following the general condemnation of the action of the Mangalam Television Channel in airing the voice clipping containing pomographic and sexual talh Chief of the Channel, R. Ajithkumar appeared in his own channel and other Channels and stated that the alleged talk by the Minister of the State was with a poor housewife who approached the Minister for help- When there were reports doing the rounds that a woman joumalist also had a role in the incident involving A.K. Saseendran, there was widesprcad protests from Network of Women in lndia, a group of women in media profession. They gave a representation to the Chief Minister of the State and submitted that his intervention was requircd to bring out the facts in connection witl the allegations against the former Minister. CW16 Geetha Nazeer is one of the signatories in the reprcsentation. There were also condemnation from Kerala Union of Working Joumaliss (KtlWJ) of which CWl8 is the General Secretary. Groups of women ioumalists staged demonstrations in front of the Mangalam Television Offices at Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi, Kozhikode etc. was a resignation spree of joumalists from the Mangalam, 6;q*% i(r."nu.oFi v"\-_x9 20 CW14 AFNeema Ashraf, CWl5 A.M. Yazir, Mr. M.M' Rajesh, Deputy News Editor at Kozlrikode bureau are some of them, as reported in Deccan Chronicle Daily dated 0l-04.2017' 37 prominent writers and cultural leaders of Kerala issued a joint stalement condemning the reprehensible broadcast made by the Mangalam Television Channel which was reported in Kerala Kaumudi Daily dated 30.03.2017 and other leading dailies ofKerala' 3.2 Apology by CWI R Ajitbkumar In the wake of the mounting criticism against the Mangalam Channel, R- Ajithkumar, C.E.O, Mangalam Channel finally admitted that the Minister was the target of a sting operation. He appeared on Mangalam Television Channel and tendercd an apologl on 30.03.2017 at the prime time (21,19:.46 ra 2122'-55 hrs.) on behalf of the channel as follows:- "This is aD explanation to the news telecasl on latmching day ofMangalam Channcl. rWe had made some mistakes while telecasting that news and Mangalam Television genuinely opologises lbr that. Matry cultural leaders, who are like teache6 10 us, made state-ments on this issue. We respect ihem and accept th€ir criiicism' Therc was criticism liom social medis and olher media houses as well. We deeply apologise for the inconvenience caus€d to the media tiatemity, especially women joumalists. This was a sting operation which is a part ofjoumalism' since it was a sting operation, we had earlier decided not to rcveal the ideniity of the person involved during the stilg opetation. No one was fotced to lake tbe job as it is being alleged by ow rivals. Eight senior editodal members were Part ofthe ilvestigation. Weappointed a Gmale joumalist who took up the job voluntarily. Nobody knew about it. Wo will reveal the tn r b€fore the judicial probe' We Fomis€ that we will not repeat the mistake agaiq. We will include a specia.l editorial syst€m to pr€vent such mislakcs. MaDgalam is determined ro frght agains wrongdoing and wilt continue lo do so. We request cveryone not to statrd against ihe channel for this single mistake, and exp€ct everyMy,s co_ operation". Rep€at telecast ofthe apology was also given: The above is the English translation of the apology telecast in Malayalam found in Annexurc - II report of EMMC. The Malayalam tanscript of the broadcast of apology produced on behalf of CW I R. Ajithkumar is given in Annexure -lII. Annexure - III apology shows that the voice clipping was the product of a sting operation carried out by the Mangalam Television Channel and that eight senior editorial memb€rs were paft of the investigation. It is stated that'\re appointed a female journalist who took up thejob voluntarily''. 33. Wbo are the Eight Scnior Editorial Members and the Female Jouroalist-? Though notice under section 5(2) of the Commissions of tnquiry Act, 1952 was issued to CWI R- Ajithkumar, C.E.O. and CW2 Sajan Varghese, Chairman of the Mangalam Television Channet to submit answers to the questionnaire, they did not file the statement in time. When they filed it betatedly, CWI R. Ajithkumar on dre date of his examination and by CW2 Sajan Varghese (who did not appear before the Commission) by the end of the inquiry, both of them claimed protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and did not answer questions 19, 2l to 30 of the questionnaire rclating to the voice 22 clipping and the people behind it. In the last paragraph of his statement, CWI R Ajithkumar stated as follows:- "However I would like tq Fes€nt the following facts. I am the Maoaging Dir€ctor of the Company CN Iofomedia I am not involved in the day to day collection and transmission ofNews items The transmission is under the cottrol of an editorial team consisling of nunerous penions. I had no occasion to edit tlrc so calted talk Fansmittd olt 26.03.201'7. Chief reponer Jayachandran atong with Nazila Nazimuddin approached me with a complaint regarding sexually explicit talk and acts by the Minister. I entrusted Mr. Jayachan&an to look i.nto the matter Later 2 days priorto the iraugural transmission both of them again approached me along with a recording of tbe talk. I asked them to mect the editorial team for appropriate actiol Thc unedited recording of the voic€ clipping was transmitted. During the early st8ges of the lelecast I was convinced lhal the voice in lhe recording was of the Minister himself. There is no conspiracy ofany solt in traasnitting rhc voice clipping of the minister on 26.03.2017. It was done bonafide and it wastrue voice recording of the talk of the minister with one ofour staff'mernbers which is lhe truth. No editing of the voice recording was done by me or my channcl and the entirg recording fimished by Nazila u/as telccast. The telecast omitted revea.ling the aue identity of the lady as she qualifies as the victim in the incident". After stathg in the Amexue - III apology that 8 senior editorial members were part ofthe investigation, in the statement he has taken a different version that he is not involved in the day to day collection and transmission of news items. The transmission is under the control of on editorial team consisting of numerous persons- In spite of direction to fumish the niimes of the editorial team in charge on 26.03.2017, CWI R. Ajithkumar did not produce it. What is produced Koohi-30 is only the list of the entire staff and the editorial list of Mangalam consisting of 30 persons as on 28.0g.2017 including Al-Neema Ashraf who had resigned fiom Mangalam on 03.04.2017. Thelistis so carelessly prepared and submitted without complying with the direction of the Commission. However, it appears to the Commission that the following persons are prima facie connected with the making and telecast ofthe voice clipping. The identity of the actual persons who are responsible for the making and telecast of the voice clipping comes within the domain of criminal investigation which is going on parallel to this judicial inquiry. 3.4 The Principal Persons bchind the Voice Clipping The principal penons prima facie involved in the making and telecast ofthe voice clipping are the following: 3.4.1 CWI R. Ajithkumar R. Ajithkumar is admittedly the Managing Director and Chief Editor of the Mangalam Television Channel. Before the Commission, CWI Ajithkumar denied that he is the C.E.O. of the Channel in spite of answering in the statement that he is the C-E.O. of t}|e Company as answer to question No.ll. According to him he is the C.E.O- of Mangalam Daily. But he is known as the Chief of the Channel as stated by other witnesses before the Commission and that nothing will be done in the Channel without his approval. He is shown as tlre C.E.O. of Mangalam Television Channel in the Bail Applications liled by him before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. tn the statement filed by CW2 Sajan Varghese, Chairman of Mangalam Television Channel, it is stated as answer to question No. I I that R. Ajithkumar is the M.D. and C.E.O. of the Company. In the list of staff filed before the Commission, one Teena Krishnan is shown a:r Office Assistant to C.E.O. It has come out in the inquiry that Teena Kochi-30 24 Krishnan came to take back the Pen ddve containing the voice clipping after the telecast. CW8 S.V. Pradeep, News Editor & Reader in the Mangalam Television Channel stated that the pendrive was handed over to him just before the moming broadcast by CWI R' Ajithkumar to be handed over to CW6 Lakshmi Mohan ln the statement extacted above, CWI has admitted that when CW3 R' Jayachandran and CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin approached him with a complaint regarding sexually explicit talk and acts by the Minister' he entrusted CW3 Jayachandran to look into the matter. It is again stated by CW I R Ajithkumar that 2 days prior to the haugural transmission both of them again approached him along with a recording of the talk. CWl0 in her complaint filed against CW'17 A.K. Saseendran has stated that she handed over the Phone containing the tecorded talk to the C.E.O. Therefore, the involvement of CWI R. Ajithkumar in the making and broadcast of the voice clipping is prima facie made out. 3,4,2 CWZ Sajan Varghese Sajan Varghese is the Chairman of the Mangalam Television Channel as stated by him as answer to question No 9 in the statement filed by hin. He refused to answer question Nos. 19, 21 to 32 regarding the voice clipping and persons involved claiming protection rmder Article 20(3) of the Constifrtion. He stated that being the Chairman of the Company, he is not involved in the selection of programmes in the channel. The editorial board is selecling the programmes to be telecast in the channel. He is not a part ofthe editorial board. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2l0D5ll7 filed bv CW2 Sajan Varghese before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala - after obtaining several adioumments from the Commission for his appearance and evidence - to quash the appointnent of the Commission of Inquiry, to cancel the notice issued to him along with questionnaire and to recall the summons issued to him by the Commission, the contention taken by him is as follows: "The p€titioner who is the Director of the comlxny which owns Mangalam Televisioo is not itrvolved in Oe selection of news items telecast by the cbannel. There is no legal liability upon the p€titioner hcrcin with rcgard to the progmmmes telecast by me channel. Therefore, inclusion of the petitiorcr in the proceedings of the 3drespondent is unnectssa4r and beyond the scrpe of the said enquiry. The questionnaire which the petitioci was called upon to answer before the commission does not come under lhe ourview of the terms of reGrence". The contentions of the writ petitioner was rejected and the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as per judgment dated 08.08.2017. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted under heading No. 2 above- After the dismissal of the Writ Petition, one more opportunity was given to CW2 Sajan Varghese to appear before tlre Commission. but he chose not to face the Commission. lf the case of CW2 is that he has no involvement in the news telecast by the channel or that he has no legal liability as claimed above, that contention should be swom before the Corunission. It is to be noted that CW2 Sajan Varghese is Accused No. 9 in CBCID Crime No. 5 I /CR/OCW- I /T\tptt/20 I 7 and Crime No. 52ICR/OCW- I /TVPW20I7 registered in connection with the telecast ofthe voice clipping in which investigation is in progress as seen from the progress report filed by CW2l Shanavas, Dy.S.p. before this Commission. In the circumstance, it is prima facie seen and telecast that he is also one ofthe persons involved in the making of the voice cliPPing. 3.4.3 CW3 R. JaYachandran and head ofthe R- Jayachandran @ S. Narayanan is the chief reporter involvement in this Investigation Team of the Mangalam Daily' His in the statement case is already mentioned by CWI R' Ajithkumar Nazimuddin filed by him and in the complaint filed by CWl0 Nazila of the Chief in the private complaint filed by her before the Court also Accused No' 2 Judicial Magistrate, ThiruvananthaPuram' He is He in the crimes registered by the police as mentioned above news inthe himself has revealed his involvement in many sensational case which last two decades in Kerala including the ISRO espionage India' His was found to be a fake one by the Supreme Court of by the involvement is also spoken of by witnesses examined Report' ln the Comrnission which will be discussed later in the and telecast circumstances his prima facie involvement in the making ofthe voice clipping is established' 3.4.4 M.P. Santhosh Editors of M.P. Santhosh was one of the 2 News CGordinating Accused No' 5 Mangalam Television Channel on 26'03'2017' He is he must be one in the crimes registered b y the police and by seniority the sting of the 8 senior joumalists who took the decision to conduct III operation as stated by CWI R' Ajitlrkumar in the Annexure - apology. In the circumstance' he is prima facie involved in the making and telecast ofthe voice clipping' 3.4.5 CW5 Rishi K. manoj with Rishi K. Manoj is one of the News Co'ordinating Editors along by CW4 M.P. Santhosh. He is Accused No 7 in the crimes registered the Police and by seniority he must be one ofthe 8 senior.joumalists who took the decision to conduct the sting operation. In the circumstance, he is prima facie involved in the making and telecast of the voice clipping. 3.4.6 M. Lakshmi Mohan Lalshmi Mohan is News Editor and Reader of Mangalam Television Channel. She was the anchor/News Reader at the inaugural news progranrme on 'women's safety' telecast by Mangalam Television Channel from l0 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. during which the voice clipping said to be that. of a Minister of the State was telecast. She is Accused No. 8 in the crimes registered by the Police. Her evidence before the Commission is that she had no previous knowledge ofthe contents ofthe voice clipping. CWl3 Sandhya who was one ofthe guests in the studio at the time of airing of the voice clipping stated that CW6's face became pale at the time of airing of the voice clipping. CW6 Lakshmi Mohan broken down in front of the Commission during inquiry. Though she may have no knowledge regardrng the making of the voice clipping, as a news prcsenter she must have knowledge about the voice clipping and cannot be absolved from the liability in airing the voice clipping containing the obscene matter. 3.4.7 CW7 Firoz Sali Mohammed CW7 is one of the highly qualified and experienced media joumalists of Mangalam Television Channel having an M.Phil in Theatre Arts and having worked in many Channels in Kerala and abroad. His involvement in the making of the voice clipping is doubtful as he joined the Mangalam Television Channel only on 25.02.2017 as News Editor & Reader. He is accused No. 4 in the crimes registered bv the oolice. His role on 26.03.2017 was as News Reader in the 2a repeat telecast of the voice clipping on that day. As he was involved in the telecast of the obscene matter he cannot be absolved fiom his liabiliry. 3.4.E CW8 S.V. Pradeep He was News Editor & Reader of Mangalam Television Channel. Hejoined theChannelon07.ll.2016- He isaLaw Graduate and has other qualifications in Joumalism and other subjects- He staned his media career in AIR and worked in various other channels befbre joining the Mangalam Television Channel. He was on duty on 26.03.2017. CWI R, Ajithkumar handed over the pen drive to him just betbre the moming progrzrmme. From his evidence before the Commission he appeared to be a confident of CWI R. Ajitlrkumar. He also stated that after the broadcast of the voice clipping, Teena Krishnan, Office Assistant to the Chief approached him and asked for the pendrive. He stated that his belief is that the audience did not hear the sleazy talk fiom the voice clipping. This shows the nature of the witness. CW9 Manjith Varma also spoke about the closeness of CW8 Pradeep to CWI R. Ajithkumar. To the suggestion that the duty of a joumalist is to report things happening and not to make things happen, he denied the suggestion. This shows the joumalistic ethical standard of CW8. He also justified the broadcast of the vorce clipping and also stated that he has not so far heard the apology broadcast by CWI R" Ajithkumar. He is accused No. 3 in the connected crimes as seen fiom the progress report dated 30.08.2017 filed by CW2l Shanavas, Dy.S.P. before the Commission. ln the circumstance, he is prima facie involved in the making and telecast of the voice clipping- p*s ,€\-_x9!tKochi-30 Jii 29 3.4.9 CW9 Manjith Varma He was News Editor of the Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017. He has an experience of 17 years in media. He ioined Mangalarr Television Channel on 15.06.2016. He stated that he resigned fron the Channel on 18.06.2017 after the case as he faced difficulties. According to him, he had no previous knowledge of the voice clipping. But he stated that he had knowledge about an explosive news on tle inaugural day. CW9 stated that he had the impression that the discussion was not in the right direction and when he told this io CW8 Pradeep in the pCR (hoduction Control Room). he was told that the C.E.O. had told CW6 Lakshmi Mohan as how to lead the discussion and he need not interfere. CW9 stated that he felt insulted before the juniors and when he objected before CWI R. Ajithkumar, he indifferently told that he would look into it. He told that at the time of the breaking news CWl R. Ajithkumar and CW8 Pradeep were in the PCR. CW9 added that again CWg pradeep insulted him by saying that they knew how to manage all this. Thereafter he went to canteen. He has completely distanced himself fiom the voice clipping. However he is Accused No. 6 in the crimes registered by the Police as seen ffom the progress report filed by CW2l investigating officer. In the circumstance, a close appreciation of the evidence is necessa4r to establish his involvement in the making and broadcast of the voice clipping. 3.4.10 Nazila Nazimuddin Nazila Nazimuddin is the Sub Editor of the Mangalam Television Channel as per the list of employees fumished by CWI R. Ajithkumar in response to the questionnaire issued by the Commission. She was also employed as Repofter as seen from the statement filed by CWI R. Ajithkumar. lt is stated that 2 days prior to the inaugural 30 transmission, CW3 Jayachandran and CWIO Nazila Nazimuddin approached him along with a recording of the talk. CWl0 Nazila did not respond to the notice and questionnaire issued to her by the Commission under section 5(2) of the Commission of lnquiry Acl CWl0 also did not appear when issued summons to appear before the Commission on 21.06.2017 or thereafter' When the Commission issued an official memorandum to her to aPpear before the Commission and warned her that on her default to appear before the Commission, the Commission will be forced to take coercive steps tbr her appearance or draw an adverse inference against her, she sent an application dated 27.06.2017 for exemption from personal appearance. Along with the application she submitted certified copy of the complaint filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, copy of her appointment letter dated 01.07.2016 in the Mangalam Television Channel as Sub Editor, copy of the letter extending her probation tiU 30.06.2017 and copy of proceedings in CMP No. 899/17 dated 29.05.2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram which shows that the complaint filed by CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin was taken on file as CC No,. 528/2017 under section 354(4),354 (D),509 IPC against A.K. Saseendran, former Minister for Transport. The complaint of Nazila Nazimuddin before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram is given as Annexure - IV. In the same application filed for exemption from appearance, CWIO Nazila Nazimuddin also stated that her statement before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate may be treated as her version before this Commission. The swom statement of CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin is given in Annexure - V. It was also stated by CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin in tlre afrdavit that her right leg got fi'actured and it was advised by her Doctor to take compiete rest for a period of2 months lrom 21.05.2017. It was also srated in the affidavit that discharge sunrmary dated 21.05.2017 of Cosmopolitan Hospital was attached. But no discharge sunmary was attached. However, considering the medical reason stated by CWl0, she was directed to appear before the Commission on 24-07 .2017 . But CW l0 failed to appear on 24.07.2017 and thereafter on Zl.0g.2}l7. There was also no representation for her throughout tle proceedings. It is ascertained during local inspection of the Mangalam Television Channel that CWIO Nazila is now working as News Reader in the Mangalam Television Channel. Meanwhile, there was a face book post by CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin, copy of which was produced by Counsel for CW17 A.K. Saseendran, to the effect that she was cheated by CW3 R Jayachandran. This face book post dated 15.0g.2017 is given as Arnexure - M. lt was later withdrawn by her. It is reported by Daily tndian Herald, an online News portal on 16.08.2017 that the face book post was withdrawn by CWl0 Nazila under the compulsion of CWI R Ajithkumar and others. A copy of the news in the Daily Indian Herald is produced by the Govemment pleader for the information of the Commission. Daily Indian Herald Online dated 16.08.2017 is given as Annexure - VII. It is reported that the channel management has given new offers to CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin. From the averments in the Annexure - IV complaint and statement of CWl0 Nazila before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram as Amexure - V, th€ statement of CWI R. Aiithkumar and other witnesses before the Commission during inquiry, the recording of the it is seen that CW10 is primarily responsible for oPeration conceived talk. It is also prima facie seen that it was a sting executed by by CWI R. Ajithkumar and CW3 Jayachandran and as a'honey trap'' CWl0 CW3 R. Jayachandran using CW10 Nazila criminal case' who is shown is the accused No. l0 in the connected filed by CW2l as Unknov,'n Female in the progress report has reported that he has tnvestigating Officer on 30.08'2017' CW2l and it was stated by her recorded the statement of Nazila Nazimuddin and CW3 R' that it was under the direction of CWl R Ajithkumar Saseendran' that the Jayachandran she established rapport with A'K' entrusted to CW3 R' talk collected by her through her telephone was and that the phone Jayachandran, to be given to CWl R' Ajithkumar talk between male and handed over by her to him contained the entire the voice clipping female and it was after editing out female sound was after the was broadcast on 26.03.2017' It is seen that it Offrcer when questioning of CWt0 Nazila by CW2l Investigating criminal case' CWl0 she realised that she was an accused in the by CW3 R' Nazila posted in the face book that she was cheated J ayachandran. f,i9x Kochi'30 33 CHAPTER 4 The Resigration of the Minister of the Stste Shri A.K. Seseendran 4.1 Announcement of Resignation "Mangalam Television came, peopte Saw, Minister surrendered,, This is the English translation of the headline of the box news published in the centre page of Mangalam News Daily published on ?7 .03.2017 , following the resignarion of Minister of Starc for Transporl Shri A.K- Saseendran on 26.03-2017 immediately after the telecast ofthe voice clipping allegedly that ofthe Minister ofthe State on 26.03.2O17 at I 1.20 A.M. The timeline as published in the box news is as follows:_ r 0.00A.M Scroll and Announcement in the Television Screen that soon there will be a big breaking news that will shock Kerala I l.00A.M Announcement by the News Reader that the voice clipping of obscene talk of the State Minister of the State to a woman who came to give a representation is going to be telecast I 1.20 A.M The voice clipping is aired I 1.45 A.M Disclosure that the talk was by Minister of the State A.K. Saseendran 34 -.''-.^.1Demand for resignation ol the Minister by various politicians like P.C. George MLA, J.R. Padmakumar, spokesperson of State BJP, Bindhu Krishna, President of State Mahila Congress. V.S. Mano.i Kumar, State General Secretary of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi VijaYan informs that the allegation against the Minister is serious and it will be looked into Minister A.K- Saseendran cancels his official programmes and goes to Guest House, Kozhikode 02.15 Channels break the news that A.K. Saseendran informed the Chief Minister his willingn!!! !9199 02.36 There is confirmation bv Government sources that the Minister will resign 02.50 A.K. Saseendran declares his resignation at the Press meet. Z"uuXPS {/\ iI -. -^\ 5-tKochi'30 i '.: 4.2 Why did he resign ? In the Press meet, Minister A.K. Saseendran stat€d tha! : " l haven't done anything wrong and I am conlident about that. I am resigning because I don't want to crcate an embarrassing situation to thc t,DF- which is facing a by-election in Malapptram. Let there be a probe and truth will prevail. I am resigning to uphold political morality. Only a detailed probe will bing out the tluth and I am ready for it. I knew a new Malayalam Channel w&s launching its operation on Sunday, but Dever had any idea I will be the subject of a launch exclusive, I am ready to face any probe and I have not committed ihe mistakc as alleged by the Channel. Neithe. my pafly nor the LDF has sought my resigrntion. I deny the allegations against me. I am lot afraid of anyone. I resigned because I don't wanr to be the butt of ridicule by clinging on to the Minisrerial post in the context of allegarions". To a query whether he feated more tapes or videos will come out, Saseendran said he was not afraid because he had never committed the act. "l am confident I have no1 committed any mistake. While I was in the opposition. I had condemned UDF leaders who refused to rcsign despite facing allcgations of corruption and sleaze. t resigned because I wanted to show them I do what I speak. Public always expect a resignatron from a Minister in such a situation. I see my lcsigoation as a moral responsibility". (as reponed in lndian Express Daily daled 27 .03 .2017). Before the Commission of lnquiry CWl T A.K. Saseendran rciterated his venion regarding the reason for resignation' In answer to the questionnaire issued to him along with the notice issued r'r/s 5(2) of the Commission of lnquiry Act, 1952, he stated that he did not talk as broadcast in the voice cliPping and it is not his talk' He never who misbehaved and tatked in a lewd manner to any woman 35 approached him for assistance. He also stated that the talk in the voice is not that of a Minisrer and it is only a private talk and that too only that of a male. He further stated that what was broadcast as a voice clipping in his name was the product ofa criminal conspiracy with the intention of destroying his public life with a reputation for half a century. He asserted that the said fabricated news broadcast by the Charmel on the date of its inauguration was for the purpose of making illegal gain and it is a serious crime. He pointed out that C.E.O of the Channel tendered an apology about the fabricated news about him. 5w 37 CHAPTER 5 The Appointment of the Commission and the Scope of Inquiry 5.1 Appointment of the Commission 'fhe telecast of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State was a major embarr-assment to the LDF Govemment which came to power on the promise of a comtption fiee and clean administration as reported in media. While announcing his resignation on 26.03.2O17 Minister A.K. Saseendran stated that he was resigning to uphold political morality. He stated that only a detailed probe will bring out the truth and he was ready for it. On 27.03.2017 itself the Govemment declared a judicial probe into the matter- Announcing the decision, Chief Minister Shri Pinarayi Vijayan said that A.K. Saseendran stepped down on moral grounds and it was not an admission of guilt (As per Indian Express Daily dated 28.03-2012). On 29.03.2017 the State Cabinet decided to appoint rhe Commission of Inquiry to look into the circumstances leading to the resignation of A.K. Saseendran. As reported by the media the Cabinet felt that in the given circumstances when the former Minister didn't even wait for a preliminary inquiry into the incident before stepping down, a judicial pmbe would be suitable to find out the truth behind the incident (as per Deccan Ckonicle Daily dated 30,03.2017). ln the circumstance, the Govemment of Kerala reached the opinion that it was necessaq/ to appoint a Comrnission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, namely, the news aired in Mangalam Television Channel on 26'h March, 2017 and accordingly issued Notification judicial probe would be suitable to find out the truth behind the incident (as per Deccan Chronicle Daily dated 30'03 2017)' the opinion In the circumstance' the Govemment of Kerala reached for the that it was necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry public purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of Channel importance, namely, the news aired in Mangalam Television on 26'h March, 2017 and accordingly issued Notification March' No.29780/SSA2/2017/Home, S'R'O'/ No' 16712017 on 31" 2017 and appointed this Commission of Inquiry' 5.2 Terms of Reference of the Commission' of The Govemrne hxed the terms of reference ofthe Commission Inquiry as follows:- to inquire into the vemcity of the voice clipping lo he that of a Minister of the State telecast by Mangalam Television channelon to thc abolc 2610312017: to inquirc into thc cinunstances that lcad conversation edited to inquire into as to whether the recorded voice clipping was or tampered with mala fide intentions and as to who have acted behind that; voic€ clipping is t!i. ro inquire illlo as to whether (he act of airing the illcgal and it involves illegal activities or conspiracies and if so' the legal action to be laken in this regard : to incluire into the olher maners connected with this case as the Commission Observes i Thc Commission was directed to comPlete the inquiry and submit its report within three months fiom the date of publication of the notification. 5.3 Scope of Inquiry 39 In an inquiry conducted under the Commission of Inquiry Act, there is no prosecution and defence. The object of conducting the inquiry is not with a view to pronounce judgment. The task before the Commission is collection of facts and materials on the subject referred to it and submit its report with recommendation to the Govemment. In this case the Commission has to inquire into the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26-03.2017: circumstances that led to the above conservation ; whether the recorded voice clipping was edited or tampered with mala fide intentions and who have acted behind that ; whether the act of airing the voice clipping is illegal and it involves illegal activities or conspiracies and ifso, the legal action to be taken in this regard. The scope of inquiry of the Commission also includes other matters connected with this case as the Commission observes. Tne Commission has considered that the matters connected with this case also involves the lbllowing issues:- invasion of Right to Privacy of Citizens; the extent of freedom of the Media as a whole, questions ofjoumalistic ethics and prot'essional standards i and measures to prevent the misuse ofthe freedom ofthe media esoeciallv electronic Media. 4*'% !(xocnl-roJ!r (?}t-_-{9 CHAPTER6 The Inquiry 6.1 The Commission Assumes Charge Immediately after the notification on 31.03.2017, the Commission assumed charge on 03.04-2017. The Secretary to the Commission and other staff were appointed soon and the Commission started the preliminary steps for the functioning of the Commission. As finding a Government accommodation for the finctioning of the Office of the Commission involves a long and protracted proceedings, the Commission decided to function from his residence making use ofthe available office facility. A meeting with the District Collector, Emakulam had preceded and it was informed that no Govemment accommodation was available. In the Govemment Order, it was specified that the headquarters of the Commission would be at Emakulam and that the sitting of the Commission can be held at the Govemment Guest House, Emakulam. Secretary fiom the Home Department contacted the Commission and requested tle Commission to $an functioning at the earliest. It is to be stressed that the term of the Commission was only three months which was later eKended by another 3 months by amending the original notification dated 3 1 '03 .20 I 7 and later extended by another three months. The Commission was also desirous of completing the inquiry at the earliest. Hence it was decided to stan ftrnctioning of the Commission by making use of the available office facility like computer, printer and other office fumiture. This has saved the Govemment a very substantial amount as arranging the ofiice 47 of the Commission would and fumiture for the functioning of the office circular No' amount to lakhs of rupees' Though Govemment makes a provision for an 50086/SSA2/2001/Home dated 4$ May' 2002 of the Commission' amount of Rs. 10,0001 to meet the initial expenses that the the procedure to draw the amount is so cumbersome amount even after 6 Commission has not been able to draw even that forced to spend from months. In the circumstance, tle Commission was his own purse to meet the day to day office expenses' 6.2 Preliminary Steps for Inquiry regarding the A press release was issued on 03.04'2017 and 05 04'2017 the Officc commencement oi the functioning of the Commission liom Kakkanad' attached to the residence of the Commission at Padamugal' A notificalion ofthe Commission of Inquiry contemplated underRule 5 (2) of the Commission of Inquiry (Central) Rules 1972 for publication in prominent Malayalam and English dailies having circulation The throughout Kerala, was sellt to the Govemment on l1042017 notification was effected by the Govemment on 27'04'2017' lhe oublic notification was issued inviting all persons - individuals' group ol persons, political parties, institutions and other organisations' particularly those who are directly or indirectly connected with the making of the voice clipping said to be that of the Minister of the State and its telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26'03 2017 and any connected matters covered by the terms of reference of the Clommission of Inquiry - to fumish to the Commission of Inquiry 6/--Xb ;-{Kochi.30 }(i vx__x9 43 affidavits duly swom to or statements containing relevant facts giving necessary particulars as to date, time and place ofany fact or occurrence referred to in the affidavit or statement and t}te persons responsible for the same. Such at'lidavits, statements, reports and suggestions with detailed particulars were required to be filed within &ree weeks from the date of the notification before the Secretary to the Commission. Though the airing of the voice clipping had led to the resignation of a Minister ofthe State and condemnation of the unethical conduct ofthe Mangalam Television Channel by various sections of the society from KUWJ, NWMI, cultural leaders of Kerala society and the rest of the media including print and electronic media and many joumalists from the Mangalam Television Channel resigned protesting against the unethical practices ofthe Channel, none filed any statement or affidavit before the Commission excepl CWl4 Al-Neema Ashraf and CWlT A-K. Saseendran. CWl5 A.M. Yazir who is one of the joumalists who resigned from the Mangalam Television Channel sent an e-mail message to the Commission making certain disclosures and allegations againsl CWI R. Aiithkurnar, C.E.O. of the Mangalam Television Channel. Meanwhile this Commission had gathered information fiom the print and electronic media and social media about the persons directly or indirectly involved in the airing of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 . Commission obtained certified copies of the Baii Applications of the accused in the criminal cases registered by the CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram in connection with the airing oflhe voice f*% :lKoqhi-3o l1l E=-d 44 clipping by the Mangalam Television Channel. This Commission also obtained certified copy of the private complaint filed by CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin against A.K. Saseendran, former State Minister for Transport. Thereafter, this Commission issued notice under section 5(2) of the Commission of lnquiry Act, 1952 read with S. 5(2) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 to the following persons and witnesses: cwl R. Ajithkumar, C.E.O., Mangalam Television Channel, Santha Raghavam, P.T.P. Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram cw2 Sajan Varghese, S/o M.C. Varghese, Chairman, Mangalam T.V. Channel, Thiruvananthapuram CW3 R. Jayachandran, S/o late S. Rajappan Nait, Investigation Team Leader, Mangalam T.V. Channel, Thiruvananthapuram CW4 M.P. Santhosh, S/o K. Madhavan Pillai, News Co-ordinating Editor, Mangalam T.V. Channel, Thiruvananthapuram 45 CW5 Rishi K. Manoj, S/o P.K. Kamalasanan, News Co-ordinating Editor, Mangalam T.V. Channel, Thiruvananthapuram CW6 M. Lakshmi Mohan, D/o Mohanan Nair, News Editor & Reader, Mangalam T.V. Channel, Thiruvananthapuram CW7 Firoz Sali Mohammed, S/o Shallukhan, News Editor & Reader, Mangalam T.V. Channel, Thiruvananthapuam CW8 S.V. Pradeep, S/o Sadasivan Nair, News Editor & Reader, Mangalam T.V. Channel, Thiruvananthapuram CW9 Manlith Varma S/o K.K. Godavarma, News Editor, Mangalam TV Channel, Thiruvananthapuram 46 cwl0 Nazila Nazimuddin D/o Nazimuddin, Nazila Manzil, Vamam, Kaniyapuram, Thiruvananthapuram cw11 Sonia George, SEWA, KRAD 63, Kuthimvattom Road, Kunnumpuram, Thiruvananthapuram CWI2 Dhanya Raman, Vadakke paravila Veedu, K.S. Road. Kvalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram cwl3 Sandhya S.N., Anova.T.C., l0/1947 (4). Thozhuvancode, Vattiyoorkavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. cwl4 Al-Neema Ashraf, Chinnufi, AKG Jn., Elanad P.O., Ayur P.O., Kollam - 3 CWl5 A.M. Yazir. Sruthi (lJ), Kallampadi Roao, Behind Indoor Stadium, MSp, Kunnummel, Malappuram 47 cwl6 Geetha Nazir, MF4. Flat 310, Vrindavan Housing Colony, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram cwlT A.K. Saseendran MLA., MLA Quarters, Chan&agiri Block - 303, Thiruvananthapuranm cwlS Narayanan C., General Secretary, KlfWJ, Kesari Building, Thiruvananthapuram cwl9 The Secretary, Kerala Television Federation, Kairali Tower, Asan Squire. Palayam. University P.O., Thiruvananthapuranm CW20 The Secretary, Press Council of lndia, Soochana Bhavan, 8 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - I l0 003. The Commission also addressed the State Police Chief for copies of the FIRs registered and the statements of the accused and the witnesses recorded and documents seized durins the investisation of the connected #-% Rs%; 48 criminal cases. lt was also requested to send a progress report of the investigation for the purpose of inquiry by the Commission. None of the above persons or witlesses except CW14 Al-Neema Ashraf, CWlT A.K. Saseendran filed statement or affidavit or documents within the stipulated time. Commission issued summons to all the persons and witnesses mentioned above and also to CW2l Shanavas, Dy. S.p. and CW22 Bijumon, Dy.S.P., High Tech Cell who are the main investigating officers in the connected criminal cases for their examination before the Commission from 19.06.2017 and for final hearins on 30.06.2017. 6.3 History of Inquiry Sitting of the Commission for recording of evidence started on 19.06.2017 . Though CWI R. Ajithkumar and CW2 Sajan Varghese, C.E.O and Chairman of Mangalam Television Channel respectively were summoned for examination, both ofthem remained absent. h was submined by Adv. Georgekutty Mathew that the witnesses had some personal inconvenience for appearance on that day and prayed fbr adjournment for 2 weeks. However, Commission adjoumed their examinatioo to 28.06.2017 considering the limited time for inquiry. On 20.06.2017 CW3 Jayachandran, CW4 M.p. Santhosh, CW5 Rishi K. Manoj and CW6 M. Lakshmi Mohan who were summoned for examination remained absent. Adv. Georgekutty Mathew filed vakalath lbr these witnesses and submitted that these witnesses required time to appear before the Commission. They rverc directed to appear on 29.06.20t7 . 9---XA itxocni-30 J:1 vL_-4t aq On 21.06.2017 CW7 Firoz Sali Mohammed, CW8 S.V. pradeep, CW9 Manjith Varma and CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin who were summoned fbr examination remained absent. CW7 to CW9 were represented by Adv. Georgekutty Mathew who filed vakalath for them. It was submited that these witresses required more time for their appearance before the Commission. CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin remained absent, though summons was served. CW7 to CW9 were directed to appear on 29.06.2017. lt was ordered to issue an Official Memorandum to CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin to appear on 29-06.2017 and informing her that on her failure to appear on 29.06.2O.17, the Commission will have to consider enforcement of her appearance or the Commission will draw an adverse presumption against her in the inquiry. On 22.06.2017 CW13 Sandhya S.N., who was one of the panellists for discussion present at the studio of the Mangalam Television Channel at the time of telecast of the voice clipping was examined. CWI I Soniya George and CWIZ Dhanya Raman who had receivcd summons to appear on that day remained absent. There was also no representation for them. However, their examination before the Commission was dispensed with as they were to depose on the same point as CWl3 Sandhya. On 23.06.2017 the evidence of CWl4 AlNeema Ashraf was recorded. CWl5 A.M. Yazir and CWl6 Geetha Nazir remained absent. CW16 applied lbr time and she was directed to appear on 27.06.2017. Examination of CWl5 was dispensed with for the time being. On 24.06.2017 CW17 A.K. Saseendran MLA was present. His evidence was recorded. As the case ofCWlT A.K. Saseendran in the statemenr T 50 filed by him and his evidence before the Commission js that he did not talk to CW 10 Nazila Nazeemuddin as aired in the voice clipping, his cross-examination on behalf of CW I to CW l0 from the Mangalam Television Channel was postponed after their evidence. It was specifically made clear by the Commission that CW I to CW l0 shall be allowed to put questions to CW l7 only after their evidence and production of the voice clipping telecast and the original conversation of CW 17 allegedly recorded by CW 10. CWIT was directed to appear as and when necessary after the evidence, ifany, ofCW I to CW 10. On 27 .06.2017 CW 21 Shanavas, Dy.S.P. was examined. On behalf of CW 20, the Secretary, Press Council of India, an affidavit was filed. CW 20 u.as required only to file an affidavit. CW 16 Geetha Nazir, CW l8 Narayanan C. and CW 19 Secrctary, Kerala Television Federation remained absent. CW 19 had filed a statement. It was ordered that CW I 6 and CW | 8 will be summoned again. On 28.06.2017 CW I R. Ajithkumar was partly examircd. He also filed statement belatedly answering some of the questions in the interrogatory issued to him at the time ofnotice. As Counsel forCW l7 sought time tbr cross-examination, his fi.uther examination was adjoumed to | 1.07.2017. On 29.06.2017 CW 3 to CW 10 were absent. It was informed by the Secretary that CW 5 Rishi K. Manoj contacted thc office through telephone and informed that he had resigred liom Mangalam Telcvision and that he had no instruction liom the Advocate regarding the posting ofthe case. His examination was adjoumed to 13.07.20t7. CW9 5l Manjith Varma appeared before the Comrnission after the sitting and stated that he had resigned from the Mangalam Television channel on 18.06.2017 and that he was not informed about his appearance today before the Commission. He was directed to appear for evidence on t3.01 .20t7 . After the sitting on29.06.2017, the Commission received a petition and affidavit by registered post from CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin praying for deferment of her examination till the evidence of the Government and the investigating officer is complete. It was also stated in the affidavit that her doctor advised complete rest for 2 months from 2|-O5.ZOL7. She had also enclosed a copy of the complaint filed by her before the Coun of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum, her letter of appointment at Mangalam Television and copy of proceedings in CMp No. 899/17 dared 29.05.2017 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magisrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Considering her petition and affidavit, CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin was directed to appear before the Commission on 24.07.2017. On 11.07.2017 the examination of CW I R. Ajithkumar was completed. On the basis of his evidence CW I was directed to oroduce full transcript ofthe controversial news programme on 26.03.2017, transcript of the apology of CW I broadcast on 30.03.2017 in Mangalam Television Channel and details of the members of the editorial board of Mangalam Television Channel at the time of broadcast ofthe news on 26.03.2017 on or before 24.07.2017. Counsel for CW I filed an application to call for the Call Data Records (CDR) ofthe Mobile Nos. 9847001879 and 70025159952. Commission 52 had already taken steps to obtain the CDR of the above telephone numbers. On 12.07.2017 CW 4 M.P. Santhosh and CW 6 M. Lakshmi Mohan were examined. On 13.07.2017 CW 5 Rishi K. Manoj and CW 9 Manjith Varma were examined. On 14.07.2017 CW 8 S.V- Pradeep was examined. CW2 Sajan Varghese who continued to remain absent was directed to appear on 26.07 -2017 as a last chance. On 24.07.2017 while CW 3 R. Jayachandran was present, CWl0 and CWl8 were absent. Due to the illness of the Commission, examination of CW 3 was adjoumed to 21.08.2017 and the examination of the remaining witnesses including CW l0 was rescheduled fiom 21.0g.201 7 ro 25.08.2017. On 21.08.2017 the examination of CW 3 Jayachandran was completed. CW l0 Nazila remained absent and there was also no representation. As : the case was posted as last chance on 21.07 .2017 for her and adjoumed thereafter, her evidence was closed- On 22.0E.2017 CW l5 Yazir was examined partly. As Counsel for CW I and CW 2 sought adjoumment for cross-examinarion, CW 15 Yazir was directed to appear on 24.08.2017. On 23.08.2017 CW 22 Bijumon, Dy.S.p. High Tech Cell was examrned. CIW 2 Sajan Varghese remained absent in spite of various adjoummenrs granted from 19.06.2017. As the matter was posted as a last chance. his evidence was closed. However, CW 2 Sajan Varghese filed a belared statement and answers to some ofthe questions in reply to the notice and queslionnairc issued to him. \ On 24.08.2017, the examination of CW l7 A.K. Saseendran MLA was completed. CW 17 Narayanan C. prayed for permission to file an affidavit. CW 18 was allowed to file affidavit to be read as evidence. On 25.08.2017 the examination of CW 7 Firoz Sali Mohammed was comnleted. Evidence of CW 15 A.M. Yazir was closed as he did not appear. Application for local inspection of the Mangalam Television Channel Office and Studio filed by Counsel for CW 17 was allowed. An application for Voice Identification Test filed by Counsel for CW I R. Ajithkumar was dismissed. The examination of witnesses of the Commission was closed. For evidencc, ifany, on the side ofthe parties was Do$ed to 13.09.2017. Though witness list was filed on the side of CW I R. Ajithkumar, no rvitnesscs were produced on 13.09.2017. The witnesses, namely, Rajesh Mulakulam, Chief News Editor, Mangalam Channel and Dr. P. Vinod Bhattathiripad, Cyber Forensic Expert were called absent. After hearing Counsel for the parties, evidence was closed. Counsel for the parties were directed to file argument notes, if any on or before 04.10.2017 after the Local Insp€ction on 15.09.2017. Local Inspection of Mangalam Television Channel premises was conducted on 15.09.2017. A detailed local inspection report prepared by the Commission will be discussed in Chapter I0 below. Two documcnts - C.D. containing the news progftrmme during which the voice clipping was telecast and the Mangalam Daily dated 27.09'2017 werc obtained during the local inspection. On 23.09.2o17 and 24.O9.2017 the C.D. obtained frorn the Mangalam Television Channel, C.D- forwarded by the Secretary, Ministry of 54 Information & Bmadcasting, Govemment of India, and C.D. containing a copy of the voice clipping produced by CW 2l investigaring officer during inquiry was viewed by the Commission in the presence of the Govemment Pleader- Though the Counsel for the parties were informed pres€nt, to be they remained absent. Thus the inquiry came to an end. Thereafter, Counsel for CW l, CW 2, CW 3, CW 4, CW 6 and CW 17 filed notes of argument. Government pleader filed a statement on behalf of the State and the Commission started the preparation of the report of inquiry. 55 CIIAPTER 7 The Evidence of the Witnesses Examined The evidence ofthe witnesses examined before the Commission is appreciated and analyzed in this Chapter. 7.t CWI R Ajithkumar He is the C.E.O. and Managing Director of the Mangalam Television Channel- Though he has denied that he is the C.E.O in spite of admission in the statement filed by him, it has come out in evidence from the statement filed by CW 2 Sajan Varghese, Chairman of the Mangalam Television Channel and the evidence of other witnesses examined liom the Mangalam Television Channel, he is lnown as the Chief of the Charmel. Admittedly he is Managing Dircctor of the Mangalam Television Channel and C.E.O and Associate Editor of Mangalam News Daily. It has come out in evidence that Mangalam Television Channel, Mangalam Daily and Mangalam Online are tUnctioning on the basis of s1merry as stated by CW 9 Mar{ith Varrna and as seen by the Cornmission during Local Inspection. In fict he is the final authority in the Mangalam Unit of Thiruvananthapuram. He has an experience of 35 years in print media. As revealed in his int€rview in 'Faces of Mangalam' prograrnme his father was a joumalist, a reporter of Deshabhimani Daily. He revealed that once he sent a report to the Deshabhimani affxing his frther's signature, while he was a student! Such was the beginning ofhis joumalistic career!. He is aware of norms of professional conduct applicabie to joumalists. He 56 emphasised that it is not statutory, but only guidelines laid down by the Press Council of India and not applicable to Channels. This statement indicates his attitude and approach towards norms of journalistic ethics. Thar aftitude is that he is not bound to follow the guidelines. He admitted that there are guidelines laid down by National Broadcasters Association. (lt is News Broadcasters Association - NBA). His approach to joumalistic ethics is apparent when he disagreed with the principle, 'the duty of a media professional is to report things happening and not to make things happen'. He stated that a news may make events happen, that is the impact of the news. He reiterated that what is stated in the news broadcast of Mangalam Television Channcl on 26.03.2017 including the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State is true. He stated that the responsibility for the telecast of the voice clipping was with the Editorial Board. According to him the Chiefofthe Editorial Board changes per time and that he could not remember the members of the editorial board on 26.03.2017 and stated that all joumalists arc in the editorial board. It has come out ftom the evidencc of CW 8 S.V. Pradeep and CW 9 Manjith Varma that CW I was present in the Production Control Room (PCR) and News Desk at the time of the telecast of the voice clipping on 26.03.2017. According ro CW I when he heard the telecast he understood that the voice was that of Minister A.K. Saseendran. Earlier the Sub Editor had complained 1o him that Saseendran had spoken indecently to her. Chief Reporter of Mangalam Daily CW 3 R. Jayachandran who had recommended that girl had also complained to him and informed him that they had recorded the 57 conversation. He directed them to contact the Editorial Board and do what€ver is necessary. Later he understood that it was thx talk which was telecast. He stated that the victim girl is Nazila Nazimuddin. Thus CW 1 R. Ajithkunar had totally distanced himself from the qrtire episode. But CW I R Ajithkumar is a master of lies as can be setn lion his conhadictory statements, evasive answen, the evidence of other witnesses examined from Mangalam Television Channel and C.D. containing the moming prcgramm€ of Mangalam Television Channel which was obtained by the Commission from the Charmel during the local irspection. The evidence against him, his contradiction, evasive answers, circumstance against him is discussed below- 1) He has not rev€aled the names ofthe menbers oflhe Editorial Bo8r4 which according to him is responsible for the telecast of news on 26.03.2017 which must be within his lcrowledge as the CEO' MD and Chief Editor of the Mangalam Television Channel' What is pmduced is only the List of Employees in the Mangalan Television Channel and the List ofEditorial Staff. 2) He has denied the avennent in the courplaint of CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin that she had hand€d oYer the phone containing the recorded conversation to the C-E.O. When he was again asked about the statement of CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin that when she informed the Chief of Channel abow this, he told CW 3 Jayachandran about this and asked him to do what is necessaDr and whether he is not the Chief of Channel, he replied rhat the said fact is correcl 58 3) CW I R. Ajithkumar denied the main statements of his Annexue - III apolog5r telecast by hirn on 30.03.2017. Firstly he denied that he apologised for the telecast of the news on 26.03 .2017 . He stated that his expression of regret as M.D. was only for telecasting the talk of the Minister to the woman joumalist in the name of a housewife. His evidence before the Commission is against the statemenB in the Armexure - III apolog5r. When the video of his apologr was played before the Commission, that it was a sting operation and that the sting operation was the decision of eight members of the editorial board, he stat€d that it was a mistake. According to him the note of apology was prepared by the available editorial board. He did not read the note of apologr applying his mind- He again stated that it was a mistake that he stated in the apologr that they would reveal everything before the iudicial commission. 4) When he was asked about the statement of Renjith, Chief Reporter of Trivandrum Bureau of Mangalam Daily that the Mangalam Television Charurel was in possession of the entire conversation and documents, his answer is that it has not come to his notice. When he was again asked whether Renjith was a member of the eight member,s team of editorial board. his answer is that there is no such team. He admitted tlat if it was a sting operation, the Channel would be in possession of the entire unedited conversation. 5) In ansu/er to questioo put to him by the Counsel for CWIT A.K. Saseendran MLA, CWI admitted that Teena Krishnan was his Secretary. Her designation shown in the List of employees filed before tle Commission is Office Assistant to CEO. When tlis was pointed our to "l /, I I Ii.f'n J{ 59 him, he stated that the said post was not filled up. During local inspection, this Commission ascertahed from Teena Krishnur that she was working as Secretary to the CEO R Ajitbkumar in the month of March,2017. Therefore, his denial before the Commission that he was not the CEO of the Mangalam Television Channel is only on the apprehersion that he would be held liable if he admitt€d that he was the CEO of the Channel. He stated that he has not verified the list of employees produced by him before the Commission. 6) The complaint given by him before the Museum police Staton about the alleged theft ofhis laptop and pen drive which contained the alleged unedited convenation between CWl0 Nazila and CWIT A.K. Saseendran was found to be false by the police in the investigation as stated by CW21 Shanavas, Dy-S.P. before the Commission and in the progress report filed by him. CW2l later produced copy of the FIR and the Refer Report fited in Crime No. 0549/2017 of the Museum police Station. In the l0' paragraph of the Order dated 12.04.2012 in B.A. Nos.2378,2379, 2380,2539 and 2540/2012 of the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala. it is observed as follows: " ln this case only the stalerneots of the former minister mad€ itr the conve$ation between him and the l0' accused were telecast. The statemenli of the 106 accrued were not telccasl ID other words they were suplnessed- lf the charncl rrranted the public to kno* the tuth about the fom€r minist€r, it should have made the whole statement 60 public. The statements of the l0' accused arc n eglBl part of the slatements made by the former minister. Admittedly, the version given by the channel is an edited orr. The invcstigaing offcer recotded the statemcnl of the penon who cditcd the conversation. He has disclosed that it was 8t ihe ilsta(rcr ofthe firs rnd sccond accuscd rhe cditing vas done; it was they who take the initiative to tel€cast the incident. The unedited statem€nr was in the possession ofihe 6rst accusd pchaps of th€ second accused also. The flrst accus€d in the cou$e of the investigation made a complaint to rh police officer concemed tbat the laptop and the p€n ddve containing thc uneditcd vcrsion of the ircid€nt w8s stolen ftom his car in the course of a joumey. Il mcans that thcy arc oot io a positioD to produce the uredited versioo of the incident. The story of theft can be accepted only with a pinch of sdr. lt also caorot be believed thar the accused are not in the custody of a copy of the uncditcd vcrsion". When the above observation was brought to the atention of CWI R. Ajithkumar during the inquiry, his reply is that they could not convince the truth to the Hon'ble High Court at that time. It is brought out from the question put to CWI by Counsel for CW17 A.K. Saseendran MLA that during the hearing of the bail application before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the Counsel for CWI zubmitted that they were ready to produce the unedited version of the recorded conversation before the police, and upon that submission, the case was adjoumed to the next date for hearing. It was thereafter the false complaint was r€ported to the Museum Police Station that his laptop and pen drive were stolen from his car. CW 2l investigating officer deposed rhat from their /l i' ii r' i l,)-1, t \--t7:"! '- 6l lnvestigation and verification of CC TV Camer4 the alleged theft from the car ofCW I was found to be fa.lse. 7) The evidence of many wihresses is against CWI's version thar he had no connection with the telecast of the voice clipping. CW 3 R Jayachandran admitted that the reference to CEO in the complaint of CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin is regarding CW I R Ajitlrkumar. CW 4 Santhosh st*ed llrx in t}e momng of 26.03.2017 CWl R. Ajittrkumar spoke to him about the controversial news beforc its telecast and it was about a Minisbr speaking badly to a housewife- He also stated that CW I had knowledge of the contents of the voice clipping before it was aired. CW 5 Rishi K- Manoj stated that CW I R. Ajithkumar us€d to say that there would be some bombs and in the training camp for newly recruited joumalists, he used to say that they should make at least one Minister to resigrr. CW5 also stated that the news of 26,0f .2017 uras creatd by CW 3 Jayachandran under the supervision of CW 1 Ajithkumar. He also stated that CW I aired an apologr on the controversial news and that before its telecast CW 1 R. Ajithkumar came to his cabin and asked him to read the statement (ofapologr). CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan stated that CW 1 Ajithkumar is known as the Chief of the Channel and that nothing will happen in Mangalam Television Channel wirhout his knowledge. CW6 also stated thal what is stated by CW 1 Ajithkumar in Annexure -III apology is correct and the apology was for telecasting such a news. CW 6 stated that while she was ooming to the News Room in the CW I Ajithkumar 62 told her that there would be a breaking news and he confirmed that everything was ok. CW 7 Firoz Sali Mohammed stated that he came to the Chamel in the moming of 26.03.2017 and almost everyone was there and CW 1 C.E.O. Ajithkumar was also there at the Desk. CW 7 stded that the approval for airing a news programme which is prepared in advance is normally given by the Editor-in-chief. CW 8 S.V. Pradeep stated that CW 1 Ajittrkumar is the Chief Editor and he has the last word in the activities ofthe Channel. He stated that before the commencement of the moming programme, CW I Ajithkumar handed over a 1rn drive to him and hformed him that it was the matter to b€ telecast as brcaking news and that it was about a minister talking to a housewife badly. CW 8 stated that he handed over the pen drive to one Varghese, Video editor. After the telecast ofthe voice clipping Teen4 Oflice Assistant to Chief approached him and asked for the pen drive. CW 8 also admitted that CW I Ajithkumar talked to him about the apology. CW 9 Manjith Varma deposed that at the time of the breaking news CW I Ajith Kumar and CW 8 Pradeep were in the PCR CW 9 stated that CW 8 Pradeep told him that they knew how to manage all this. CW 9 also stated that there was an investigation team formed by CEO Ajith Kumar and. CW 3 R. Jayachandran was leading that team. He also stated that on that day CEO was in-charge ofthe News Desk- CW 9 also stated that CW I Ajithkurnar used to say that there would be a bomb on the inaugural day. CW 9 also stated that CW t had discussed with him O.' about t}re apology to be aired by him and he has informed him about his disagreement and that the apolory telecast was not tle one which CW I Ajithkumar discussed with him. CW 14 Al-Neema Ashraf stated that CW I R. Ajithkumar was the CEO of Mangalam Television Channel. CW 14 stated th"t after the telecast of the controversial news, the lady joumalists ofthe Mangalam Television Channel refirsed to r€ad news and upon their potest CW 1 tendered the apologl. CW 15 A.M. Yazir stated that during the training camp, CW I R. Ajithkumar talked that they required a bomb everyday and they should make at least one MLA to rcsign- For this purpose an investigation team was formed and that CW 3 R. Jayachandran was the team leader. It came to thet knowledge that therc was a plan to target certain Ministers and find out their weaknesses. CW 15 also stated that special training was given to a team consisting of 4 joumalists who were divorced women- CW 2l Shanavas, Dy.S.P. who is the main investigating officer deposed that after receiving his notice to produce the laptop, phone and pen drive on 04.04.2017, CWI R. Ajithkumar gave a complaint to the Museum Police Station that lhe bag containing the above articles were stolen ftom his car in the night of 03 -04.20 I 7. Police registercd a crime and upon investigation it was referred as false. CW2l deposed that the investigation so far r€vesl€d that the voice clipping was created tlrough a sting operation and the recorded conversaiion was editd removing the female voice. ,./ lit"1 .-kl'4"- 64 8) This commission ha,. viewed the C.D. containing the entire moming programme of the Mangalam Television Channel telecast on the date of inauguration on 26 -03.2017. This C.D. was obtained by the Commission fiom the Mangalam Television Channel itself during the local inspection held on 15.09.2017. The C-D- starts with a programrne with the caption, "Faces of Mangalam" anchor€d by CW 1 R Ajithkumar introducing the News Readers of Mangalam Television Channel including CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan, CW 7 Firoz Sali Moharnmed, CW 8 S.V. Pradeep, CW 14 Al-Neema Ashraf, Rudra Krishnan, Divya Joseph, Shihab and others. During his htroduction of himself, CWI reveals that he started his career as a joumalist at the age of 22 at the Mangalam Weekly. He boasts that his father was a reporter of Deshabhimani Daily and that while he was studying in the 7h Standard he started preparing and sending reports to Deshabhimani by putting his father's signature. He gave the motto for the Mangalam joumalists as dedication, motivation, adventure and hard work He frequently uses the phrase, 'making ofthe news' and not reporting of news. He stated that 'adventure' is unique to their channel. He hints of shocking news in Mangalam Television Channel. He also boasts about the history of Mangalam Daily news reports which led to the resignation of 3 Ministers of Kerala. The C.D- is further proof of the fact that CWl is fre Chief of the Channel and that he has the finel word in the affairs of the Channel and especially with regard to tlle contents ofthe programmes as ChiefEditor. From the above appreciation of the evidence of CW I and other witnesses and the circumstances in which the voice clipping was 65 telecast, it can be concluded that CWI was fully involved in the making and telecast oftlre voice clipping. 7.2 CW 3 R Jayechrndran CW 3 R. Jayachandran is the Chief Reporter of Mangalam Daily. He has an experience of21 years joumalist. as a According to hin he had reponed about | 00O serxational news items including ISRO espionage case, Neelan - Nalini Netto controversy, disclosure of rhe investigation report of ADGP Sandhya leading to the resignation of the then Minister P.J. Joseph, the news that led to the rcsignation of the then Minister Ganesan, t}le rcport regarding the foreign tows of ADGp .I,omin Thachankary which led to his suspension etc. Though lg staled thar he has no clear understanding as to why the news was telecast on the inaugural day itself his role behind the making and telecsst ofthe voice clipping is obvious. He stated that one day CW I R. Ajithkumar, CEO told him about the inappropriate behaviour of the Minister to a joumalist who had approached him for prepadng a report on she-toilet scheme in the KSRTC. He asked the joumalist whether there was evidence and if there was evidence, they could give a complaint to the police. CW 3 sftssed that he had confidence in the good character of tlrat person- CW I R Ajitlrkumar has alrcady stated that CW l0 Nazila Nazinruddin was introduced to him by CW 3. CW 3 stated before the Commission that he had heard that the pen drive was brcught to the news desk on the date of inauguration. He has not heard the conversation ofCW I0 Nazila to the Minister. He repeated that he 6 is r€ady to face did not know anything more than the above and that he there is any any obs€rvation fiom the Commission if it is found that change fiom what he stated above' He admitted that the Mangalam News Paper' Mangalam Television same building Charmel and Mangalan Online are fimctioning ftom the admit that and wrder the sarne management. But he was reluctant to that he had they are frmctioning on the basis of synergy' He admitted joumalists of taken classes in the training camp for the newly recruited made an the Mangalam Television Charmel' But he denied that he admitted that observation that news should be obtained at any cost' He Nazila before the Court he is a witness in the complaint filed by CW l0 He admitted the of rhe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thinvananthapuram' When he was averments in the Armexwe - IV complaint relating to him' the phone specifically asked about the averments in the complaint that containing the recorded conversation was handed over to the CEO' that the CW 3 stated that he did not know accurat€ly' But he admitted reference to CEO is to CW I R' Ajithkumar' that he He denied the evidence of CW 14 Al-Neema Ashraf against him as her was the leader of the investigation team' CW 3 alleged that the performance was not satisfactory, she wes targeted for removal from channel- He admitted that he was an accused in the criminal case registered in connection with the forgery of a document by Shobhana thst George. He stated that he was acquitted in that case' He admitted he is one of the accused in the 2 criminal cases registered in connection justifred of with the telecast of the news on 26.03 'Zol7 ' He the telecast 67 the voice clipping which according to him is the voice of the Minister. He asserted that mtil it is proved in police investigation that the voice is not that of the Minister he will believe the voice clipping. When it was put to CW 3 that until the original record ofthe conversation is produced before the Corrunission or the police and without gefing the original record no voice identification test can be conductd he stated that he did not know about it. When it \iras prs to him that CW I 0 Nazila is not appearing before the Comrnission as she will have to reveal the truth. he had no answer. When it was put to him that CW l0 is prevented ftom appearing before the Commission by him and the management of Mangalarn Television Channel, CW3 stated rhat CWl0 Nazila is of gmd character and that they would not prevent her. He admitted that he had read the face book post ofCW l0 Nazila on 15.0g.2017. The face book post of CW l0 produced by Counsel for CW 17 is given as Annexure VI. When it was - suggested that the face book post was later withdrav,m by CW l0 Nazila due to the pressure of himsel{ CW t Ajith Kumar and Mangalarn Managemen! the reply of CW 3 is that only fblse matlers are withdrawn. When the specific allegation against him in the Annexure VI face - book post was pointed out to him, the denial of CW 3 is not specific and he weakly stated tha! he would call his colleagues only by name- He furrlrer stated that Minister A.K. Saseendran was not his enemy and that he does not know about his character. When it was pointed out that CW I Ajithkumar tendered the 68 Annexure - III apology on 30.03.2017 as the news on 26.03.2017 is not true, he replied that he did not know about such an apology. He denied the evidenc€ of CW 5 Rish K. Manoj and CW 8 Manjith Vama against him. He denied that he was giving news in the Mangalam News Channel. When he was asked about the news about him and Mangalam Management in the news portal Daily Indian Heral4 CW 3 st*ed that he did not know about it. A hard copy of the Daily Indian Herald dated 16.08.2017 produced by the Govemmeot Pleader is given in Armexure - VII. When it was pointed out to him that false documents could be created using voice rccorder and camera, CW 3 stated that he did not know it, and that he is a joumalist from the print media- [n the cross- examination by Counsel for CW 17 A.K.Saseendran, CW 3 stated that everybody in Mangalam knew that tlre news was going to be about A.K. Saseendran. It has also come out from the cross-examination of CW 3 that the Annexure - VI face book post ofCW l0 Nazila appeared on 15.08-2017 when Smt. Sunitha Devadas took charge as Chief Operating Officer of Mangalarn Television Channel. When it was suggested by Counsel for CW 17 that CW l0 Nazila was induced into the sting operation on the offer of making her Chief Operating Officer, CW 3 stated that it is not correct and that he did not know about it. When it was put to him that he was psrtner with CW I R. Ajithkumar in creadng the controversial news of 26.03.2017, his rcply is that it is not a false news and that he ri/as not involved in the conspiracy. He admitted that CW l0 Nazila is now working in the Mangalam Television Channel as News Reader and ReDorter. 69 Though CW 3 initially stated before the Commission that he lcrew about the news of26.03.2017 only after the telecas! it has come out in inquiry that he is direcdy involved or part of the news pmgramme anchored by CW 6l-akshmi Mohan on 26.03.2017. It can be seen ftom the C.D. obtained fiom the Mangalam Television Channel on 15.(D.2017 during local inspection that CW3 R. Jayachandran has intoduced the breaking news on the voice clipping said to be &at of a Minister of the State.lust before the voice clipping was telecast sharply criticising the Minister ficr his immorality. This shows that he had previous krowledge about the voice clipping and he was part of the conspiracy to rnake the voice clipping and to telecast the sarne on 2 6.03 2017 . Therefore the conrenrs of Annexure VI face - book post ofCW l0 Nazila appears to be true and that the face book post must have been withdrawn by CW 10 Nazila Nazimuddin in the circumstances reported in Annexure _ VII news of Daily Indian Herald. 7.3 CW 4 M.P. Senthosh He was the Co-ordinating Editor of Mangalam Television Channel. He has been working there from 26.12.2015. He has a total experience of 25 years joumalist. as a He is No. 2 in the editorial hierarchy. He co. ordinates editorial worlq bureau, desk and technical aspects. He was on duty at the time of telecast of t}le voice clipping. CW 1 R. Ajithkumar talked to him about the breaking news of the day regarding a Minisrcr talking badly to a housewife. The pennission for the telecast of the l. 70 controversial news must have been given by the Desk Chief. They call CW I R. Ajithkumar as the Chief of the Channel. Regarding the apology of CW l, CW4 stated that it was about not giving the be€p sound while airing the voice clipping. But he feigD€d ignorance about other contents of the apology. According to him the news was brought by a joumalist, Nazila Nazimuddin of the Mangalarn Television Channel. It was believing the said joumalist the news was telecast. He did not know that CW 3 Jayachandran had any mle in it. He admitted that CW 3 Jayachandran came live in the telephone after breaking the news- He stated that the joumalists working in Mangalam Daily can also work in the Channel. According to him on the date following the telecast of the voice clipping CW 1 R- Ajithkumar told him about the misbehaviour of the Minister towards the woman joumalist of the Mangalam Television Channel. He admitted that CW 1 Chief had knowledge about the contents of the news before it was telecast. He fully justified the telecast of the voice clipping and supported CW I R' Ajithkumar. He denied that ther€ was any Protest by women joumalists of Kerala or there was any resignation protesting against the telecast of the voice ctipping. But when he was confronted with the video showing the protesting joumalists he stated that they arc not actually jor-nnalists. Thus it is seen that he is a witness more loyal than the king and a witness who closes his eyes and then would say that it is darkness. i,l-,. I \'Jl4, , 7l 7.4 ClV5 Risbi K. Menoj He is one of the News Co-ordinating editors along with CW 4 M.p. Santhosh. He has a total experience of 2g years as ajoumalist and had worked in various Channels before joining Mangalam Television Channel. He stated that he came to know about the controversial news after its telecast. He stated that it was a created news for getting the attention by the viewers on the date of inauguration itself. He staled that he believed that the voice in the voice clipping is that of A.K-Saseendran as the Mangalam report€r who came live in the Television announced that the voice is that of Minister A.K. Saseendran. CEO had announced that there would be some bombs. In the training camp for newly recruited joumalists CW I R. Ajithkumar used to say that they should make al least one Minister to resign. He agreed that it is not the duty of a joumalist to make things happen. He stated that the telecast of the news on 26.03.2017 was agains media ethics. It rvas a created news. The CEO riented a shocking news on the date of inauguration of the Channel- It was in this circumstanc€ the said news was telecast. CW 1 R Ajithkumar and CW 3 R. Jayachandran were involved. There was a special investigation t€am to create news bombs. He said tlrat CW l0 Nazila was one of them. Once he was asked whether he would lead the investigation team. He declined and stated that CW 3 could do it directly- The Glecast of the controversial news created a lot of humiliation to joumalists of the Mangalam Television Charmel. He stopped going to the Office. He visited the CEO at the jail and informed him that he would continue in the Channel Koct.i-30 72 only till he came out. But when he was released fiom the jail a termination letter on the ground that his performance was not satisfactory was sent to his house before he resigned. CW I had tendered an apolory regarding the telecast of the voice clipping. When he was consulted he objected to the apologl. For the telecast of the preparcd apology in tlre Channel, CW I gave two reasons, (a) an assunmce was given tlnt they would be ftee ftom the police case and (b) then there is the Judicial Commission, they need not mind it they would escape from it. There was no reference to the 8 member editorial tearn when he was consulted. The said sentence in apologt might have been added later. The apology was given as the controversial news was not true. The voice clipping was an edircd one. The video editor Ebin Raj told him that the original recording was for a duration of29 minutes. First it was edited and r€duced to 3 minut€s. Then CW 1 R Ajithkumar asked him to incrcase the length to 6 minutes. ln a sting operation media ethics demand that the entire conversation should be aired. Here the female voice was edited out. An edited conversation is not at all credible. The telecast of such a voice clippilg is both legally and norally wrong. CW 5 also deposed before the Commission that he was not informed of the date to appear before the Commission and that when he contacted the Channel Office he was informed that it was not necessaqr to appear before the Commission of Inquiry and that they have sefiled it. Then he became suspicious and contacted the Secretary to the Commission to get the date for appearance. In the cross-examinaion for CW I, CW 5 stated that the news could have been presented without the telecast of the voice clipping informing about the misbehaviour of the Mnister, then it would have been effective and would have gained acceptability. He stated that on 26.03.2017 CW 4 M.P. Santhosh was in-charge of the news desk. He stated in the cross-examination that he expressed his dissent in the WhatsApp group of the channel and when he was removed Aom the group he expressed his opinion in the face book He reiterared that what he deposed before the Commission is the tuth. 75 CW 6 L.hhmi Mohan CW 6 is News Reader-crmr-News Editor of Mangalam Television Channel. She was the anchor/news reader at the news progranme on the subject wornen's safety on 26.03.2017 during which the voice clipping was telecast. She has an experience of 17 years as a joumalist in various channels. to her she had no previous knowledge of the contsoversial news. She had heard ft,om the news desk that there would be a breaking news and that it was a bomb and Kerala would be shocked After discussion ofone hour in which CW I I Sonia George, CW 12 Dhanya Raman and CW 13 Sandhya S.N. pafticipate{ the breaking news was given with an introduction that now they are going to a shocking news. 74 Then the voice clipping was aired. It codained oly the male voice speaking in obscene words. Sbe did not like to hear it as a person and it was difficult for her to stst€ th€ contents before the Commission. After airing the voice clipping, A.U. Renjith fiom the news desk appeared live and the name was given annowrcing that it was the voice of the Minister A-K. Saseendran who spoke obscenely to a poor housewife who approached him for some assistance. During the airing of the voice clipping one of the guests (CW 12 Dhanya Raman) was covering her face and the other two guests became uncomfortable. CW 13 Sandyha stated tbat it was difficult for them to coqrtinue thele and that they wanted to get out. Then she informed the console that the guests were not comfortable. Finalln the guests told that they would leave only after saying their opinion and the programme continued. Following the telecast of 26.03.2017 there was police casc and she was one of the 9 mcused. She became mentally depressed- She sought &e assistance of a psychiatrist. She had to take medicine and rmderwen: counselling. She could not sleep after the incident. She wanted the job for her living and tfiat is why she has not quit Her husband is a Freelance photographer. She has a 5 year old son and living in her parcntal house. During the deposition befq,e the Commission CW 6 broke down and wept. She stated that she did not ent€r the frame after the telecast of26.03.2017. KUWJ interv€ned. CW 12 Dhanya Raman encouraged her to continue her wor{c The Company (Channel) supported her- She was told to continue news rcading after she was relaxed. The Company assured her that henc€fofih they would think ._ .,1 t, r iil 75 before they act, Following the pfotest of women joumalists, CW I R. Ajithkumar rcndered an apologr which was tel€cast. CW I is known as the Chief of the Charmel. The contents of the voice cliping was indecent and against public morality. That is why CW I rcndered an apology. The embarrassrrent she suffered was must have been sufercd by the entire society. If the news was well plarmed and presented therc would not have been this embanassment and the viewers would have accepted the news with the importance it deserved. She agreed thd it was a news creaGd for the inaugural day ofthe Channel to boost rating. A number ofjoumalists resigred from the channel, It was stated by CW 1 in the apologr telecast that it was the product of a sting operation. The evidence of CW 6 l,akshmi shows that the voice clipping was a created news for the purpose of telecast on the date of inauguration without any regard for truth and media ethics, and against decency and public morality. CW 6 t akshrni Mohm became a victim ofthe indec€nt news tele€ast resulting in her mental break down. 7.5 CW 7 Firu Sali Mobammcd He joined Mangalam Television Channel as News Editor on 25.02.2Q17 . He started as a joumalist t-ainee in Kairali Television in 2005 and thereafter worked in vcious charmels in India and abroad- He denied my knowledge about the circumstances in which the controversial news of 26.03.2017 was telecast- But he stated ttrat being the date of inauguration the entire statr including CWI Ajitbkunar was at the desk. Though he the telecast of the voice clipping, 76 when the Commission had given him the Annexure - I transcriPt of the voice clipping he refused to read it and stated that he did not like it and requested the C.ommission not to compel him to read it When he was asked whether the Mangalam Television Channel mad€ use of the services of CW 3 R Jayachandran' the Chief Reporter of the Mangalam Daily, he stated that he did not know. This is in spite of the appearance just of CW 3 R. Jayaohandran to introduce the voice clipping b€fore its telecast. CW 7 had followed CW 6 laksbmi Mohan in the repeat telecast of the voice clipping at the I O'clock news as seen from the C.D. of the news prcgramme obtained by the Commission during the local inspection and also in the C.D produced by the investiqating oftrcer during the inquiry. It is clear that CW 7 is not speaking the truth b€fore the Commission . He denied tlrat CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan spoke to him after the telecast and that he did not know anything aborn CW 6 and the guests present during the telecast of the voice clipping becoming uncomfortable. He justified the telecast of the voice clipping and stated that more obscene matters were telecast by other channels before' He admitted that tbere is a competition among Channels to telecast sensational news. When it was suggesrcd that it was against 8ll joumalistic ethics srd the Code of Practice glen by the News Broadcasters Association the voice clipping was airtd, his ftply is that it is for the NBA to say that On the one hand he would say that he has not heard the voice clipping, on the other hand he would not agree that the voice clipping is not genuine. He also stat€d that he did not watch tbe apolory telecast by Cwl R. Ajithkumar' t '1 \.'.....j.'.. lil" 77 From lhe nahre ofthe evidence ofCW 7, it is only to be found thar he is a highly interested witness and nc prepared to sp€ak th€ tnfh. 7.7 C9Y8 SV. Prrdeep CW 8 also firlly support the telecast of the voice clipping. He is a confident of CW I R Ajittrhmar. It was to CW 8, CW I entrused the pen drive containing the voice clipping to be telecast in the moming of 26.03.2017. He has frrlly srpported the teleca$ of the voice cliping and stared tbat he did not know about the apologr tenderd by CW I on 30.03.2017. His evidence before the Commission is more or less on the same lines of CW 7 Firoz Sali Mohqnmed- But his evidence hrs revealed the involvement of CW I in the telecast of the voice clipping as alr,eady discussed under 7.1 above. 7.8 CW 9 Mrnjith Verma CW9 joined the Mangalam Television Channel on 15.06.2016 as News Editor and rcsiped fiom tbe Clnnnel on 18.06.2017 following difference with CWI after the telecast of the news on 26.03.2017. He has an erperience of 17 years in various cha Els. While he admitted that he was on duty on 26-Of .2Ol7, he stared that he had no prcvious knowledge about tlre voice clipping. When he came to the Channel on 26.03.2017 CW I, CW 4, CW 6 and CW 8 w€ne alrcady there at the desk. CW lR. {iitbkumar used to say that tlrer€ would tre a bomb on the date of inauguration of the Channel. News was handl€d by CWI 78 CEO and CW 4 Santhosh and CW 8 Pradeep was there as producer. The joumalists of Mangalam Television Channel, Mangalam Daily and Mangalam Online were working on a synergy basis. He saw the controversial news only at the time of breaking. CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan was the anchor. When he heard the voice clipping, he felt that it ought not to have been telecas. During the telecast ofthe voice clipping CW I R. Ajithkumar and CW 8 Pradeep were in the PCR and when he wenl there CW 8 told him that they knew how to manage all this. During the telecast of the voice clipping he saw CW 12 Dhanya Ranan, covering her face and other guests not comfortable. Then he heard the reporter Renj ith stating the name of the owner of the voice. There was a special investigation team formed in the channel to prcpare a news on the subject ofwomen's safety and that it was under tlre leadership of CW l R. Ajithkumar and CW 3 R Jayachandmn was also there in the team. Only later he came to know that CW l0 Nazila was in the team. He did not know CWIO Nazila working as a joumalist. There was only male voice in ihe voice clipping. He understood that it was an edited one. If it was a sting operation, the entire conversation of both persons ought to have been aired and if rhere were obscene words, beep sound ought to have been used to cover tlte obscene portion. It was against all media ethics the voice clipping was telecast. It was a creat€d news to get rating on the opening day of the new Channel. CW9 stated that after the telecast of the voice clipping a number of joumaliss rcsigned fiom the Mangalam Television Channel and the womenjoumalists of Mangalam Television Channel and in general '1 'lir' ', '\-'-/'l l{tuI I 79 protested against it. He stated that all the joumalists at the desk were responsible for the telecast. Regarding the apology telecast by CW I on 30.03.2017, CW 9 stated that what was telecast by CW I was not the one discussed with him. When pradeep he exgessed his dissent, CW8 supported CW I and thereafter CW I left for tlre live telecast saying that it was the opinion of the najority. There was no editorial board in the Mangalam Television Channel. The last word in the matter of news telecast was that of CW 1R. Ajithkumar who was CEO, M.D. and Chief Editor of Mangalam Television Channel. It appears that the evidence ofCW 9 is credible and reliable. 7.9 CW 13 Sendhye S.N. CW l3 is a social activist who was one of the guests for panel discussion on the subject of women's safety on 26.03-2017 aI the studio of Mangalam Television Channel. She is working as a Publication Assistant at the Kerala Council for Historical Research. CW 13 stated that she heard the voice clipping and she is ashamed to state the contents of the same before the Comrnission. When the guess protested CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan informed the console about the discomfort of the guests. The first telecast ofthe news clipping was 80 for about 3 minutes. When the Channel again started to air the voice clipping, they rcquested CW 6 not to continue and it would be difficult for them, the speaker in the news room was cut and the voice clipping was fully telecast. Before that CW 6 had informed the audience to remove children from hearing the voice clipping. Meanwhile' Cw ll Soniya George suggestd that they would leave. Finally they decided to remain and express their opinion. According to CW 13' it was only to get attention of the public on the date of inauguration of the channel, such a voice clipping was aired. It was against all principles of media ethics. It appeared that the voice clipping was of a male and it was part of a talk by mutual agreement. The voice clipping was aired after introduction by CW 6 that it was the record of the voice of a Minister who sexually exploited a helpless housewife who approached him for some assistance. But after hearing the voice clipping they felt that it was not an attempt to exploit the housewife, but Part of a private talk by mutual agreement. After the telecast of the voice clipping it was armounced that the voice was that of the Minister A.K' Saseendran. CW 13 stated that it is a serious matter and such telecast should not be repeated and that it is a matt€r where the law and the State should interfere. 7.10 CWl4 Al-Necma Ashraf CW 14 was working as Sub Editor-cum-News Reader at the Mangalam Television Channel. She joined the Channel in the month ofMay' 2016. She has a P.G. Degree in Communication and Joumalism. She wanted It't".| ),, '\-'-r-re' 8l to b€come a good joumalist- Before joining Mangalam Television Channel she had worked in Jeevan T.V. After the tetecast ofthe voice clipping on 26.03.2017 she resigned. According to her, on 26.03-2017 she had night shift staning fiom 9 p.m. She had news reading at 11 p.m. lt was then that she heard the voice clipping- It was a repeat of the voice clipphg aired at ll a.m. When she heard it she wondered why this was given as a breaking news. She felt that it was only a personal talk. As per the joumalism she studie4 a personal talk should not be used as a news. Media is expecrcd to respect right to privacy. In the Kerala Kaumudi Daily of 27.03.2017 and in some other dailies and online news [nrtals it was reported that the woman joumalist behind the news was z 24 year old from Kollam. She and one Salini working at Emakulam Bureau are hailing from Kollam. Some joumdist friends called her and enquired whether she was involved- She felt embarrassed. She applied for leave on 27.03.2017. On 28.03.2017 in the aftemoon she reached the Mangalam Television OIfice and e-mailed her resignation letter to CEO. She resigned because in a live progfturme in which CW I, CW 4, CW 5 and Copy Edilor Sreekumar participated and answered questions of viewers, they did not reveal the name of the woman joumalist. The news was prcsented as if the Minister sexually exploited a poor housewife who approached him for some assistance. Bu! the name of the woman was not revealed. There was only the male voice responding. As per principles of media ethics the entire talk ought to have been telecast- After her resignation she posted her experience and opinion in face book which was reported in the media- 82 After 2 days ofher resignation CW I gave a live telecast and stated that it was a sting operation and it was done by a woman joumalist who had vohmteered for the sarne. When she had joined the Channel, she was told that she was included in an investigation team which was stated to be led by CW 3 Jayachandran and CW 5 Rishi K. Manoj. Salini, Rudra Arun, Nazila Nazimuddin and Rinal were the members. It was stated by CW 3 that their aim was to get news at any cost. She declined the offer as it was against the professional standards of a joumalist. When the voice clipping was telecast she understood that the investigation team was continuing. She was convinced that there was a conspiracy behind the voice clipping and the woman joumalist involved was CW l0 Nazila. It is not ethical to create sensational news. The vorce clipping was created for the purpose of having a shocking news for the channel on the date of inauguration and it was telecast alleging that the Minister sexually exploited a poor housewife who approached him for some assistance. They succeeded in their attempt and the Minister resisned. Television Channel is a business. For profitable running of the Channel they require continuous breaking news and sensational news. Freedom of Media is part of the freedom of speech and expression and subject to reasonable restrictions and no news against public interest and indecent and immoral news can be aired. The apology was given as women joumalists of Mangalam Television Channel refused to read news and they changed their stand only after the apology by CW l. -1 . lvw/l l KcchL30 83 CW 14 further admitted that it was against the norms of press Council of India and the NBA tle voice clipping was telecast. CW 14 has denied the suggestion on the part of the Counsel for CW I that it was part of the duty of the media to inform the public about the sexual talk ofa high public firnctionary. CW 14 reiterated that what was telecast was a personal talk. Though tie case of CW I, CW 3 and CW 4 that CW 14 was about to be removed fiom the Charmel on the ground of incompetence, no such question was put to CW 14 beforc the Commission. Going through the evidence of CW 14 before the Commission and her face book post, it can be concluded that CW 14 is an able and joumalist competent and that no joumalist with self_respect could have continued in a channel like Mangalam which telecast the sexually explicit voice clipping and she henelf was suspected by her media friends that she was involved in the sting operation. Thercfore, CW 14 rightly resigned from the Mangalam Television Channel. 7.ll CW 15 A.M. Yazir CWl5 joined the Mangalam Channel in 2016 as Chief Reporter in- charge of Malabar region. He started as a joumalist in 2003 and worked in various channels before he joined Mangalam. Following the telecast of voice clipping allegedly to be rhat of Minister A.K. Saseendran, he 84 resigned on 12.04.2017 - When there was notification of the Commission of Inquiry, CW 15 sent an e-mail message to the Commission stating what he knew about the incident' The hard copy of the e-mail message to the Commission is given as Annexure - VlIl' CW 15 had attended the 10 day training camp for the newly recruited joumalists of Mangalam Television Channel' CW I R' Ajithkumar' the CEO and Chief Editor of the Charmel gave a long talk spelling out aim of the Channel. His main focus was on getting a bomb for every possible day and that at least one MLA should resign' If that was not they should make a top bureaucrat to resign' A discussion followed journalism' and many questioned as to whether they need such kind of an When his tum came, he expressed the view that Kerala is a State with expanding rniddle class and we don't have a large upper class or a lower class. Therefore, it was better not to give the kind of news that would disturb the middle class- He posed the question that was it not desirable to have a Channel that would strengthen the State and its administrative machinery and one that would strengthen other economic, cularal and social sectors. He talked about a model political economy of commrmication. Though CW 1 praised his suggestions, his decision was to execute his aim already spelt out. During the following dales discussion continued creating different panels and one of the panel was on how to find news bombs. CW3 R Jayachandran was leading that panel. Though, they had the freedom to join the panel of CW3, many of them kept away as the team had a plan to investigate certain subjects which would sabotage the present Govemment. It came 85 to their knowledge that there was an attempt to find out certain Ministers with some weaknesses and prepare a report on that. Later another camp waut organized as there was delay in starting the Channel. It was during that camp he had met CW I 0 Nazila. There was special training for 4 of the women joumalists who were divorcees. joumalists These were sent out with cameramen to certain important persons including Minister A.K. Saseendran. CWl0 Nazila had shared her experiences to one of her friends. At the end ofthe camp there was Onam celebration during which CWl0 Nazila fainted. Chief Reponer of Central Kerala resigned when he knew about the sordid affairs and went back to the Reporter Channel. After the camp they inquired about it and came to know that CW3 R. Jayachandran was giving some unconventional training to CWl0 Nazila to get some exclusive news. When they enquired with the editorial, they got the reply that everyhing was being done in good faith. On the previous day ofthe launching ofthe Channel, i.e. on 25.03.2017, he got instruction to conduct an interview of A.K. Saseendran and sent it urgently- At that time he was working in the Malappuram Bureau in connection with the Lok Sabha bye-election there. As the camera man was not available, he suggested that it could be on the next day. But the desk demanded that the natter should be sent on that date itself. When he contacted the Minister A.K. Saseendran he asked him to suggest a suitable place and he would come there. As it was election, the Minister 86 could not enter the constituency in omcial vehicle' He met the Minister on the subject at the cornpound ofa friend and requested for his opinion the of women's safety. The Minister gave a very progressive view on subject. Itwas againstthe moral hlpocrisy in Kerala After sendingthe given record of the convesation he contacted the desk' But he was not day a reply. But he was told that the launching was on the following and there would be a resignation from the Ministry' Later he realised juxtaposition that the Channel was going to employ the media tool But where a person would be exposed efibiting his words and deeds' in conventional joumalism such a tool is seldom enployed' But during used and the news programm e on 26.03.2017, only a voice clipping was were of an allegation was raised against the Minister. But some ofthem the view that it was not sufficient to Prove the truth except raising an allegation. Therefore some of the joumalists from the Channel resigned. He did not resign immediately due to the bye-election at Malappuram and did not want to cause difficulty to the Channel' Later he came to l(Irow many stories - one of the stories was that there was a conspiracy to make A.K. Saseendran resign and make Thomas Chandy a Minister. He came to know that CWl R' Ajithkumar talked to When Thomas Chandy in Dubai and he received something in retum' the matters are examined according to ow law and considering the was conspiracy he understood that 3 offences were committed; i) Media used to sabotage lhe Government; ii) Media freedom was misused violating principles of media ethics; and iii) Women were used to create a media culture ofblackmail in Kerala. J/ ' u/' 87 Following the airing of the voice clipping many joumalists from the Mangalam Television Channel resigned and condemned the low media culture of Mangalam Television Channel. CW 14 Al-Neem4 M.M. Rakesh, Deputy News Director, Kozlikode, Deepak Malayalam, Reporter are some of them. He also opined that a joumalist who does not follow the principle that the duty of a joumalist is to report things happening and not to make tlings happen is one who does not obey the law of the land. Twisting and fabrication of facts is a serious offence by a joumalist. Hearing the obscene voice clipping that was telecast, he felt that it was an attempt to make believe something that would not stand as truth. If a voice clipping is to be telecast it should be complete, concise and precise. There are norms laid down by the Press Council oflndia in conducting a sting operation. If a conversation is recorded, it is not credible, if the conversation is edited. It was t€lecast only to boost the rating of the channel. Objective information is the product of the media business. No licence is given to sell a false information. Just like a hotel which is not given a licence to sell poisonous, and adulterated food a nredia house has no licence to s€ll half truths and false news. False news will crcate problems in the society and anarchy in administration. There is a social demand in Kerala for news that are genuine and tnrthful. It was without understanding this the Saseendran news was given to boost rating. Criminal conspiracy, illegal activities and violation of laws are involved in the telecast ofthe voice clipping. In answer to the questions of the Govemment Pleader, CWl5 admitted that the women ioumalists in Manealam Television Channel are under ,J,n, 88 mental strain. A joumalist does not know any other work to eam his or her livelihood and due to that circumstance the women joumalists are exploited by media houses. A channel which telecast a voice clipping as Annexure - | has no right to function as per law. There should be strong law to control such erring media. At present there is no well defined staitute to regulate the electronic media and its functioning. It is easy to invest money in media and create anarchy in the country through false news. Though IOfflo foreign direct investment in media is allowed in the country there is no strong law or enforcement machinery to regulate the media. Media is used by various interest groups to advance their agenda. Media has no right to intrude into the privacy of the individuals. In answer to questions by Counsel for CW 17, CW 15 replied that when a news report is prepared exposing the wrong doing by a person the reporter must have incontrovertible facs and records with him to justiff the expose. The reporter is also liable to produce all those facts and records before the lawful authority. When a conversation is recorded, it should be aired as such. If the recorded conversation is manipulated with ulterior motive and made part of the news, the said news is not truthful and objective information. Editing does not mean to cover up truth, but to facilitate communication. When an investigation is conducted by a joumalist or a sting operation is conducted the name of the joumalist should be revealed. The controversial news in this case is not true. Following the controversial news the journalists of Kerala held demonstrations before the different offices of Manealam in Kerala as it was humiliating to them. !/ t! I /) t\r"l 89 Couosel for CWI and CW2 sought adjoumment which apf,eared to b€ deliberare ro avoid cross.€xaminatiorL Though th€ ooss-examination was adjorDed to alter two days, CWls did not tum up. As the contents of the Armexue - VIII e-mail message of CWl5 was already pd to CWI R. Ajithkunar and given him ar opportunity to deny the allegations, the evidence of CWt5 A.M. yazir can be r€lied uDon in the inquiry. ?.12 CW 17 A.I( Seseendr.tr MLA CW 17 A.K. Saseendran who resigned as Transport Minister foltowing the airing of the voice clipping said to be thal of a Minister of the Stat€ by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2011, is 74 years old and rep€s€nting the Elathoor Constituency in ihe Kerala State l€gislative Assembly. He sarted his political career as a student and rcs€ to b€come the State S€q€tary ofthe K.S.U., State Secretary, Vic€ Presided and President of Youth Congress, Sa& Secretary of Coog€ss and later Nationalist Cong€ss Palty (NCP). He \ras elected MLA ftom the Edakkad Constituency in 1982, ftom Balussery in 2006 and tom Elalhoor in 20ll and 2016. After th€ election in 2016 he was inducted as Tra$port Minister in the LDF Ministry atrd coDtinued as Minister till his resignation. At present h€ is the working committee meDber of the NCP. Accoiding to CW'l?, a voice clipping was aircd by the Mangalsm Television Channel on 26.03.2017 and gave a b.eaking news that he conducted sexually explicit conversation to a housewife who approached him for some assistance. lt was a totally fslse news. Other news Channels also telecast the saule news. As he wanted a detailed plob€ to bring out the tuth and it was not Ibir to continue in power during the probe he resigned to uphold political morality. Tho"sh he had not done anlthing wrong, he did not want to creale an embara$ing situation to the LDF Govenment. Therefore he resigned and demanded a detailed Fobe. The news of26.03.2017 about him is false. No housewife approached him for any assistance. He did not know the circumstance ofthe telecast ofthe voic.€ clipping said to be th.t ofa I 'X l:)' r YA ,_yll , 90 Minister of the State. There must be criminal conspiracy, illegal activities and violations of law in the airing of the voice clipping. He always behaved in a friendly manner to people including men and women who approached him for anything. The complaint filed by CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, is known to him. The averment in the complaint that she as Sub Editor - Reporter of Mangalam Television Channel had interviewed him on 08.11.2016 as part of moming show and acquainted with him is correct. Many media persons used to telephone him and he always responded to them. The allegation against him in the complaint of CWl0 is contrary to facts and not true. The said complaint was filed against him only when tlre police registered cases against the responsible persons of the Mangalam Television Channel including the complainant. He would face the complaint against him as per law- In his long political career there was never any complaint against him like this. He denied that the voice in the voice clipping aired on 26.03.2017 by Mangalam Television Channel belongs to him. Regarding the allegation of certain witnesses before the Commission that he had admitted the voice to be his, he denied that he ever admitted it anvwhere. During his examination on 24.06.2017 before the Commission, CW 17 had stated that he could not remember whether he had called fiom his phone No. 9847001879 to phone No. 7025159952 ofCW l0 Nazila tl" '*t! , 9l Nazimuddin. The Commission had already called for the Call Details Records (CDR) ofthe above numbers along with other numbers used by CW 17 as Minister. The CDR relating to the above 2 numbers is given in Annexure - IX. The CDR shows that during the period from 16.11.2016 to 16.02.2017 there were a total of 35 calls between the 2 numbers. Of this 19 calls were from 712il5gg52 of CW l0 and 16 from 9847001879 of CW 17. His explanation for these calls is that many media persons used to call him and he would call them back. When the Commission asked pointedly whether the talk of the voice clipping aired by Mangalan Television Channel on 26.03.2017 is part of his telephone tallq he denied that he talked like that. Counsel for CW 1 R. Ajithkumar put portions of the complaint of CW l0 rclating to CW 17 in his cross-examination. These questions v/ere objected by Counsel for CW 17 on the ground that they were part of the complaint and answering of the same could affect his defence in that case. A part from that as an accused this witress is having protection as provided Under Article 2O(3) of the Constitution of India and allowing such questions is against his Fundamental Right. The objection was sustained and such questions were disallowed. Counsel for CW asked I CW 17 regarding the contents of the talk between the above 2 numbers of CW l0 and CW 17. CW 17 admitted that as a media person CW l0 talked to him and he answered accordingly. He again denied the suggestion that the contents of the voice clipping aired by Mangalam Television Charmel on 26.03.2017 is part of the talk between the 2 numbers in the CDR. He rciterated that he denied the 92 voice of the voice clipping as his at many places. He denied the suggestion that he resigned because the voice in the voice clipping belonged to him. He stated that in the press meet itself armouncing his resignation, he denied the talk. He resigned because it was not fair to continue as a Minister during the probe. He stated that the terms of reference of the inquiry were fixed by the Govemment in reply to the question that there is no terms of reference to inquire into the veracity of the voice clipping so as to ascertain whether the talk belongs to him' Similar questions were Put to CWlT by Counsel forCW 2 and others and CW 17 repeated rh€ answers. He confinned the interview given to CW I 5 A.M.Y^zir at Malappuram' CW 17 stated that he never thought that the voice clipping was aired due to a conspiracy of any of the members ofhis party. He did not know the basis of the voice clipping' To the question that an inquiry into the relationship with him and the media person involved is necessary to bring out the truth b€hind the allegation, CWIT replied that the present inquiry is sufficient. He also stated that a voice identification test is not relevant now and if police required such a test, he would think about it when such a demand is made. The evidence of CW l7 before the Commission is in consonance with his statement ofdenial filed before the Commission. 93 7.13 CW l8 Narayanan C. CW 18 is the General Secretary of the Kerala Union of Working Joumalists (KttWJ). In view of item No. 5 of the terms of rcference, that is, to inquire into the other matters coffrected with this case as the Commission observes, the Commission considered that the followins issues are also hvolved in this case, - invasion ofright to privacy ofcitizens ; - the extent of freedom of the media as a whole ; - questions ofjoumalistic ethics and professional standards; and - measures to prevent the misuse of the freedom of the media involved and arising in the telecast of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State in Mangalam Television Charmel on 26.03.2017 . Therefore, notice was issued to CW l8 to CW 20 to file sta&ement before the Commission and also issued surnmons to adduce evidence before the Commission directly or by affidavit. CW 18 filed a statement giving the justification for sting operation as a joumalistic tool for news reporting. His statement will be discussed in detail in Pan - III ofthis report. 7.14 CW 19 John Brittas, General Secretrry, Kerala Television Federstion. Statement and amdavit frled by CWl9 will be discussed in detail in part - III ofthis report. /a"qtlD.. (i"i,'""''' ,.'lii 'r:j.' : i'i 94 7,15 CW 20 Secretery' Press Council of Indie The affidavit and documents filed on behalf of CW 20 Press Council of India (PCI) will be discussed in detail in Part - III ofthis report. 7.16 CW 21 Shenaves A., Dy.S.P. CW 2l Shanavas, Dy.S.P. is the main investigating officer of the Special lnvestigation Team (SIT) formed by the State Police Chief to investigate the two crimes, i.e. Cr. No. 5IICR/OCW1/TVPIW20I7 under section 120(8) IPC and under section 67(4) of I.T. Act and Crime No. 52/CR/OCW1/TVPW?O|7 under the same sections of the Crime Branch Police Station under the supervision of I.G., Crime Branch. The SIT consists of M. Ramachandran l.P.S., S.P. Kottayam, Pratheesh Kumar IPS, S.P. Palakkad, Bijumon, Dy.S.P., High Tech Cell, Radhakrishna Pillai, Dy.S.P., Crime Branch, Woman S.I. Sudhamani, Thiruvananthapuram City and CW 21. Three progress reports were filed by CW 21, on 14.M.2017 and 30.08.2017 and 03.10.2017. Both the crimes were registered on 29.O3.2017 - The first crime was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Adv. Sreeja Thulasi and the second crime was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Adv. Mujeeb Rahman. As both the crimes were regarding the same matt€r, both the crimes were clubbed for investigation- The copy of the petition given to the Chief Minister by Network of Women in Media India signed by CW 16 Geetha Nazir and Jisha Surya was also jl, ,._tty.' 95 received for investigation. CW 14 Al-Neema gave a copy ofher social media post to the police. S- 34 IPC was also added in addition to the offences mentioned in the FIR. Report was filed before the Court fumishing lhe name and address of the accused including CW I to CW 9 and Al0 unknown female. The unknown female is CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin working in the Mangalam Television Channel. But no report regarding her involvement is given to the Court. The reason given by CW 21 is that they are waiting for the FSL report on the voice clipping for questioning her regarding her involvement in this case. Though notice were issued twice to appear before the police she did not tum up after receiving the notice. Al to ,4'5 in the crime were arrested on M.04.2017 and were produced before Court. They were remanded to judicial custody and later released on bail by the Hon'ble High Cout. ' CW 2l stated that his investigation revealed that the talk of the voice clipping was recorded using a mobile phone and later edited using laptop in the edit suit and telecast in the Television Channel in the name ofa housewife- Though police custody ofAl and 42 were obtained and questioned, they did not co-operate with the investigation. Therefore, the original voice clipping, the mobile phone used for recording and the laptop used for editing the voice clipping could not be recovered. After receiving the notice by Al to appear before the police i.e. on 04.04.2017, Al Ajithkumar gave complaint to the Museum Police Station that his bag containing the mobile phone and laptop was stolen fiom his car in tlg ,,q.,/ffi;^ \J it! 1 ,i.dii{ccr"!i: : .' ' \\il.\'*.( . t... / 96 night of 03.04.2017. Regarding this Crime No. 549/2017 of Museum Police Station under section 379 IPC was registered and investigated. The case was found to be false and a refer report was filed before the Court. As A1 would have to produce the above evidence before the investigating officer, they were either suppressed or destroyed. Though it is stated by tle accused and witnesses that it was the talk of Minister A.K- Saseendran that was recorded, the same has to be proved through scientific evidence. The transcript of the voice clipping is produced before the Commission (Annexure -l). By telecasting the voice clipprng containing sexually explicit contents offence under section 67(4) of IT Act is committed. The voice clipping is containing only the male voice of a private talk. The voice clipping of a particular person could be made through voice imitation and voice mixing through digital technology. Video editor of Mangalam Television Channel Ebin Raj and Teena, Personal Secretary to Al gave statement to the police regarding the editing of the voice clipping. There was conspiracy in recording and editing of the recorded talk. So far offences under sections 120(8), 201 read with S. 34 IpC and S. 67(A) ofthe I.T. Act are made out against the accused- The investigation has to be completed by collecting scientific evidence. He has also collected the apolory telecast by Al in the Mangalam Television Charmel. In the progress report filed by CW2l on 30.0g.2017 it is stated that he subsequently questioned Al0 Nazila Nazimuddin and recorded her statement. According to the statement given by her one day the Minister A.K. Saseendran misbehaved when she had approached him for recordrng a progftmrme and thereafter at the instruction of A I and A2_ Koclij 97 (CW I and CW 3) she became close io A.K.Saseendran and recorded the conversation and handed over to 42 and that in tle mobile phone handed over by her there was the conversation of herself and the male and that it was editing out the female voice the voice clipping was made and telecast on 26.03.2017 by the Mangalam Television Channel- He has also collected the CDR of the mobile phones used by Al0 Nazila Nazimuddin and A.l(. Saseendran. The CDR have to be analysed and the investigation has to continue. FSL Report regarding the electronic inshuments and voice clipping is awaited. 7.16 CW 22 Bijumon, Dy.S.P. He is one of the investigating officers along with CW 2l Shanavas, Dy.S.P. He has investigated the technical aspects of the case. On 03.04.2017 he had taken into custody the voice clipping copied in a pen drive produced by Shyam Kumar, Technical Officer of the Mangalam Television Channel on the basis of a mahazar. The transcript of the voice clipping was prepared. A copy of the same along rvith a copy of the voice clipping is produced before the Comrnission. Call details records were collected fiom the service providers- As the case is under investigation and the call details are of confidential nature only the soft copy is pmduced before the Commission. Al0 was questioned by CW 2l Shanavas on 04.08.2017. The hard disk, pen drive, phone obtained fiom Al, A2 and Hard Disk of the CC TV of Mangalam Television Channel are sent for forensic examination. Mobile phone used for recording the talk and laptop used for editing the audio clipping could not pe recovered- They must have been suppressed or destroyed 98 by Al. R. Ajithkumar who gave a false complaint regarding their theft to the Museum Police Station. Their investigation revealed that the Mangalam Television Channel Company had purchased a mobile phone and given to A10 for recording the talk. The Online purchase bill of the mobile phone has been obtained by the investigating officer. CDR shows that there were 19 calls fiom the mobile phone No' 7025159952 of Al Nazila to mobile phone No. 9847001879 of A.K. Saseendran and 16 calls were made from the latter to the former number. The tower location of the above calls is Thycaud Hospital, and the address is Lal Tourist Home, Thampanoor. There is only a distance of 100 metres between the office of the Channel and the tower address. As the conversation is edited and as the original conversation is not produced and as the voice clipping is made by combining and mixing the conversations at different times, conspiracy is suspected and the investigation is continuing. Without obtaining the original voice recording the genuineness of the voice cannot be verified. It is technically feasible to collect talks made on different contexts and create a voice clipping by editing with the help of software. In addition to the phone calls obtained fiom the CDR" calls could also be made through WhatsApp, messager, skype and intemet using smart phones for which there would be no CDR. .-/ ,I ttttl '--\',! : 99 As per S. 5 of Indian Telegraph Act only authorized authorities are entitled to intercept and record telephone calls. Other interceptions and recording are illegal. Without producing the original voice recording the veracity of the voice clipping telecast by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 cannot be verified. No technical problem inthe telecast of Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 was reported. The face book post of CW l0 Nazila (Annexure - VI) in connection with this case was noted- It is stated in the face book post that she was cheated by CW 3 R. Jayachandran and others. It was after questioning by the police the above face book post was seen. Later this face book post was withdrawn. CW l0 Nazila is still working in the Mangalam Television Channel. It was in tlre month of November, 2016 the order for phone was given. The first phone call was on 16.11.2016. The last call was on 16.02.2017. The first 4 phone calls were made by the woman joumalist. lt was thereafter there was the retum call. No other women joumalists were given mobile phones. A.K. Saseendran has not been questioned and his statement recorded so far. The investigation is going on. It is suggested on the side of CW2 that there is notlinq obscene in the voice clipping. The evidence adduced before the Commission shows that the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State telecast on 26.03.2017 is not established and the said voice clipping is the product ofa conspiracy and created to boost tle rating of the New Channel on the launching day itself. i.,;t i t1,; " ' .-;' {'.,' . .lr' :- .:,, r00 CIIAPTER 8 The witnesses who did not appear and their case examined 8.1 CW2 Sajan Varghese CW 2 is the Chairman of the Mangalam Television Channel. His role is discussed in detail in Chapt€r 3.4.2 above. He is accused No. 9 in the array of the accused in the co lected crimes registered by the police as per the progress report filed by CW 21 Shanavas, Dy. S.P. CW 2 has not cG.operated with the judicial inquiry. He is mainly responsible for delaying the inquiry. The examination of CW2 before the Commission was scheduled on 19.06.2017. He sought adjoumment. Adjoumment was granted. But he did no1 appear before the Commission in spite of several adjoumments. Meanwhile CW2 filed WPO 2109512017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 23.06.2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato quash the notification appointing the Commission of Inquiry and to recall the notice and summons issued to him. The WPC was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as per the judgment dated 08.08.2017. Thereafter the Commission posted the inquiry to 23.08.2017 for his examina'tion as a last chance. On that day also CW2 did not tum up. The examination of witnesses by Commission was closed on 24.08.2017. Thereafter the inquiry was posted on 13.09.2017 for the evidence ofthe parties. On that last occasion also CW2 did not adduce ',1 t'l' 't--,-,1 U/\/l l0l Evidence before the Commission. Inquiry was closed on 13.09.2O17 as there was no evidence for the panies. CW 2 Sajan Varghese attempted to mislead even the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as can be seen from his averments in paragraph 3 and 4 of the WPC which are extracted as follows: '3. That tlre police registered two crimes with regard to rhe disputed telecast on 26.03.2017. A true copy of the FtR No. 51t2017 of cBCtD, Thiruvananthapuram dated 30.03.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P3. A true copy of the FIRNo.5212017 dated 30.03.2017 0f cBClD, Thiruvananthapuram is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P4. Besides this Complaint bearing No. 5523112017 - PHQ was filed before the Director General of Police, by a lady, alleging misbehaviour from the part of the said Minister. Since there was no proper action fiom police, the said lady filed CMP No. 87712017 dated 05.04.2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. True copy of the said CMP No. 87712017 dated 05.04.2017 is oroduced herewith and marked as Ext. P5. 4. While matters were pending before the police authorities as also the subject matter of judicial scrutiny before concemed jurisdictional Magistrat€, -l 'tlr' ,r i. l/ltll iixocl:,_ro v L".t-.-, 102 the State Govemment in a surprise move, issued a notification dated 10.04.20t7 appointing the 3'd respondent Commission of lnquiry. A true copy of the notification dated 10.04.2017 issued by the State Govemment is produced herewith and marked as Ext. P6." Actually the Govemment declared the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry to enquire into the veracity of the voice clipping on 29.03.2017 and the Govemment notification is dated 3 I .03.201 7 (shown as Ext. P6 in WPC). lt was on the basis of 2 complaints dated 29.03.2017 ttle FIRs were registered on 30.03.2017. The lady joumalist filed the complaint dated 03.04.2017 before the Director General of Police on 03.04.2017 and the same was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police which was received by him on 05.04.2017. Meanwhile, the same complainant filed the complaint dated 05.04.2017 before t}e Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram obviously without waiting for necessary action by the police. As it was leamt that the complainant approached the Courl the police obtained legal opinion fiom the District Govemment Pleader and Public Prosecutor who reported that the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magishate recorded the swom statement of the complainant and posted the case for fi.uther enquiry. Therefore, the police did not register a crime as can be seen from the statement filed by G. Sparjan Kumar IPS, District Police Chief and DIG of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City in -l : " ".."4), .i .' !il'.".ti-j;,1. " \_*i'l!.v '"(f,-- -."j 103 reply to the notice issued by the Commission under section 5(2) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. As the Govemment notification appointing Commission of Inquiry was issued on 31.03.2017, the averments in paragra.ph 4 of the Wp(C) No. 2109512017 is totally false. In fact, ir is the lady joumalist who filed the complaint as a shield when the judicial inquiry was ordered and police reghtered crimes in which CW 2 and the lady joumalist are accused. In the circumstance, it is only to be found that CW 2 attempt€d to mislead the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala when he stated that the State Govemment in a surprise move issued a notification dated 10.04.2017 appointing the third respondent Commission of Inquiry. CW 2 Sajan Varghese wilfully and deliberately did not appear before the Commission and his role in the criminal conspiracy in the making of the voice clipping and its telecast on 26.03.2017 is rightly being investigated by the potice. 8.2 CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin CW l0 Nazila is admillsdly the reporter of Mangalam Television Channel who allegedly recorded the conversation of CW17 A.K. Saseendran as seen fiom the statement filed by CWI R. Ajithkumar. Her role is already discussed in Chapter 3.4.10 above. But CWl0 has failed to file any staiemsnt and reply to the questionnaire issued by the Commission under section 5(2) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. CWl0 also did not tum up before the Commission to substantiate 104 her case as per the summons issued by the Commission as discussed in Chapter 6.2 above. In reply to the Oflicial Memorandum issued by this Commission on the failure of CW l0 to appear on 21.06.2017 and directing her to appear on 29.06.29017, CW l0 sent an application for adjoumment by registered post which was received by this Commission after the sitting on 29.06.2017, raising various contentions in the affidavit filed by CWl0 along with the application. It is apposite to go through her affidavit which is extracted below: "1. I have been served with summons from the Hon'ble Commission directing to appear for the purpose of recording evidence. Itis submitted that Rule 5(5Xa) of the Commission of Inquiry (Central Rules), 1972 provide that if the commission considers it necessary to record evidence it shall first record the evidence produced by the Govemment and only thereafter record the other evidence. It is submitted that the documentary evidence fumished by the Govemment has not been disclosed to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not in a position to ascertain the nature of the subject matter ofthe inquiry and the specific nature of the allegations which is to be inquired by this Hon'ble Commission. 105 2. From the notice issued directing my appearance the terms of reference seems io be a bunch of allegations into the veracity, circumstance and tampering and conspiracy in the airing of the voice clipping of a Minister of the State on 26.03.2017. It is humbty submitted that I have already filed a complaint before the Hon'ble Chief Judiciat Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and had given my statement before the Hon'ble Court. A copy of my statement before the Hon'ble Court is attached herewith that may be treated as my version before this Hon,ble Comrnssion. My right leg got filactured and it is advised by doctor to take complete rest for a period of two months from 2ls May, 2017- A copy of my appointrnent letter is attached herewith and discharge surnmary dated 2l .05-2017 Cosmopolitan Hospital. Hence it is essential in the justice interest of that my exambation may be deferred and the Government asked to produce the evidence from their side. A separate petition has been filed and the same may be allowed in the interest of justice". It is obvious fiom the contentions of CWl0 Nazila in her affidavit that she has no idea or mislead regarding tie nature of inquiry conducted by this Commission. There is no basis for her contentions as the Govemment is not a party in this inquiry and the Govemment has ,/,:*lli:,';) ;,;;;' 1 ' ,i" ,1 tri;1r.,.:-l ..:,, , t'l ,l l '1. \''! ...). _-,t " ', 106 However' absolutely no evidence to adduce before the Commission' and was considering her contention that her riglrt leg got fractured it period 2 months advised by her doctor to take complete rest for a of from 21.05.2017, she was asked to appear before the Commission on on the 24.07.2017. But she did not aPp€ar on 24'07 '2017 or thereafter dates to which inquiry was adjoumed' There was also no communication from her. When the Secretary to the Commission attempted to contact her from the official phone, her phone reported to be switched off' CWl0 is not truthful even in the affidavit filed before the Commission' Though it was swom in the affidavit that discharge summary dated was not 21.05 -2017 of Cosmopolitan hospital was attached, the same seen attached. This was intimated to CWl0 in the Official on Memorandum issued by the Commission asking her to aPpear and 24.07 .2017. It is seen from tle evidence of CWI R' Ajithkumar CW3 R. Jayachandran that she has been working in the Channel during on the entire period of inquiry. They have no case thal she was on leave medical grormds during the period. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn by the Commission is that she had deliberately not failed responded to the notice and questionnaire issued to her and also the to appear before the Commission in obedience to the summons and two official memorandum subsequently issued to her by the on her Commission. She was informed by the official memorandum that failure to appear before the Commission, the Commission will have to consider enforcement of her appearance before the Commission or the r' I'l r ' \A"y - t07 Commission will draw an adverse inference against her in the inquiry. In spite such of a waming by the Commission, CWl0 Nazila has chosen not to appear before the Commission on the subsequent dates. CWI and CW2 repr€senting the Mangalam Channel also did not produce her on their part when an opportunity to adduce evidence by parties was given to them on 13.09.2017 on which day the inquiry was closed- The Commission did not consider it expedient to issue coercive $eps against her in view of the short duration ofthe Commission and also in view of her averment in the above affidavit filed by her. She stated that she has already filed a complaint before the Hon,ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and had given a statement before the Hon'ble Court. CWl0 has attached a copy of her statement (Amexure V) before - the Hon'ble Court and prayed that the same may be treated as her version before the Hon'ble Commission. In view of the above stand taken by CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin, her version in the complaint and statement given by her before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram has to be considered. Along with the petition and affidavit dated 27.06.2017, CWl0 also attached copy of her appointment letter dated 0l.07.2016 issued by Mangalam Television Channel as Sub Editor on probation for a period of6 months on an all inclusive remuneration ofRs. 10,000/-- CW l0 /'t\,/-' t I llr / r-ln y:!- 108 has also submitted letter dated 31.12.2016 issued by the Director of Mangalam Television Channel extending her probation till 30.06.2017 ' On the basis ofthe complaint dated 05.04.2017 and the swom statements of the complainant and 2 witnesses recorded, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram passed the following order as proceedings in CMP No. 899/17 dated 29.05.2017: " I have gone through the complaint and the statement of the complainant and witnesses. I am satisfied that there is a ground to proceed against the accused and I am of the view that complainant has prima facie made out a case against the accused wrder section 354(4)' 354(D)' 509 IPC. Hence complaint is taken on file as CC 52812017 under section 354(A)' 354(D), 509 IPC' Issue summons !o accused. Take steps- For retum of summons posted to 28.07 .2017" - On going through the Annexure - IV complaint and the Annexure - V statement given by her before the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, it is seen that the complaint against A.K. Saseendran, former Transport Minister is regarding an incident allegedly occurred on the dat€ after 08.11'2016' It was admitted by CW17 A.K.Saseendran himself before this Commission that on 08.11.2016 CWl0 Nazila had interviewed him as part of moming show and she acquainted with him. The alleged incident which formed the subject matter of the complaint and on the fiound prima facie basis of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate '"I J! i, Kochi'30 109 case under section 354(4), 354(D), 509 IpC must be after a few days after 08.11.2016. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not given the date ofoccurrence ofthe offence either in the complaint or in the swom statement before the Court. The date of occurrence is one of the essential ingredients in a case for criminal prosecution. It appears that without considering this aspect prima facie case is found bv the Court against the accused. As CWl0 has requested the Commission to treat her statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as her version, it has to be considered whether the said statement is a probable version. As per the Arnexure _ IX CDR produced by CW 2l and CW 22 investigating officers obtained from the service providers there were a total of35 calls between phone No. 9847001879 of A.K.Saseendran and phone No. 7025159952 of CWl0 Nazila. Out of this 16 calls were fiom 9g47001879 and 19 ca s were fi:om 7025159952 during the period from 16.11.2016 to 16.02.2017. The first 4 phone calls and the last 2 calls were from the phone No- 7025159952. Therefore, it does not appear probable that CW 17 A.K. Saseendran were making frequent phone calls to CW l0 Nazila and harassing her as stated in the Annexure _ IV complaint. CW 17 had called back after the first 4 calls by CW l0 Nazila. CW17 has explained his talk to CW l0 that various media persons used to call him and he called back. He has denied any improper talk fiom his pan or from the part of CW 10. Therefore, it is for CW l0 Nazila to prove before the Commission that the talk included in the voice ctipping was made by CW l7 A.K. Saseendran. The complainant (CW l0) did nor produce her phone and original voice recording before the Chief -'''4,. \e''' . ,.ccl.i i0 ir. : 'i*;,r- -1i1, 0 Judicial Magistate also. The Mangalam Television Channel which telecast the voice clipping did not produce the original recorded conversation or any other relevant evidence and documents and devices claiming protection under Article 20(3) ofthe Constitution. In the circumstance, it is only to be concluded that the complaint was b€latedly filed by CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin after the Govemment appointed this Commission of lnquiry on 29.03.2017 to enquire into the veracity ofthe voice clipping alleged to be that ofa Minister ofthe State aired by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 and after two criminal cases were registered by the police on 30.03.2017- Therefore, it is more probable that the complaint was filed by CW l0 on 05.04.2017 only as a shield to avoid arr€st by rhe police and as a defence in the judicial inquiry and against criminal prosecution. Al to A5 were already arrested by the police on 04.04.2017 as stated by CW 21. Prima facie case was found by the Court ofthe ChiefJudicial Magistrate only on the solitary statement of the complainant. The statement ofthe other 2 witnesses, namely, Sibi and R Jayachandran is only regarding what is told byCW 10 Nazila to them. In short, the version ofCW l0 Nazila in the complaint and statement does not appear to be credible and reliable in the absence of any corroborative evidence, i.e. the phone that was used for recording the conversation and the record of the original conversation and also in the absence of swom statement and facine questions before lhis Commission. lll E.3 CW 1l Sonia George and CW 12 Dhanva Rrman CW ll Sonia George and CW 12 Dhanya Raman are 2 of the guests along with CWl3 Sandhya S.N. who were present in the studio of Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 at the time of lelecast of the voice clipping. They are social activists invited by the Mangalam Television Channel to participate in the panel discussion on the subject of 'Women's Safety' as stated by CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan who anchored the news programme which started at l0 a.m. CW 13 Sandhya who deposed before the Commission stated that they were highly embarrxsed by the telecast of the voice clipping containing sexually explicit talk- It is in evidence as can be seen from the deposition of CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan and CW 16 Sandhya that CW 12 Dhanya Rarnan covered her face with hands and the 2 were seen closing their ears during the telecast ofthe voice clipping due to embarrassment. Though notices and summons were issued to CW ll to CW 13, only CW 13 Sandhya appeared before the Commission to give evidence. CW 1l Sonia George, who is the Secretary of Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA) and CWl2 Dhanya Raman, social activist as reported by tlie media, did not csxe to respond to the notice issued by the Commission or appeared before the Commission obeying the summons issued to tlem. However, considering the fact that they were to depose on the same point as CWl3 Sandhy4 the Commission dispensed with their evidence. I tt2 8.4 CW 16 Gcethr Nazir CW 16 Geetha Nazir is one of the 2 signatories in the representation given to the Chief Minister of Kerala on 29.03.2017 demanding a proper inquiry into the telecast of the voice clipping by Mangalam Television Channel on 26-03.2017 in the wake of the reports that a woman joumalist is involved and it is humiliating to the women joumalists of Kerala. A copy of the representation given in the name of the Kerala Chapter of Network of Women in Media tndia was forwarded to the police for investigation from the office of the Chief Minister- Though notice and summons were issued to CW 16, no statement or affidavit is filed before the Commission. Meanwhile it has come to the notice of the Commission from the letter dated 14.09.2017 received fiom the Secretary to tie Govemment of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting that on 03.04.2017 they received a complaint fiom NWMI, Kerala regarding the violations by Mangalam News Channel on lhe telecast of a voice clipping containing sexually explicit matters. lt was also reported that the above complaint was withdrawn by NWMI, Kerala on 04.04.2017 on the ground that they have decided to approach the News Broadcasters Association with their oetition. When the NBA was addressed in the matter by the Commission as per letter dated 20.09.2017, the NBA replied as per lener dated 22.09.2017 as follows: u3 L NBSA would like to inforrn you that as per the News Broadcasting Standards Regulations, the News Broadcasting Sandards Authority (NBSA), the independent self-regulatory mechanism set up the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) looks into complaints only relating to the content shown by the member channels of the NBA. 2. On 10.04.2017 at 14.00 hrs, NBA received a complaint by email only fiom Network of Women in Media (NWMD, Kerala regarding violations of Mangalam news channel. NBSA replied ro (NWMt)by email only dated l0.U.2Ol7 14.41 hrs, that Manealam ^t News channel is not a member of NBA. Hence, NBSA cannot take action on the complaint. NWMI may write to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MoI&B). tn the letter, itself we gave the details of the Joint Secretary (Broadcasting) and the Director in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting with whom they should communicate and both these oflicials of the MoI&B were marked/copied in the mail itself. With this action, the complaint was closed by NBSA- From the above communications it is seen that the NWMI, Kerala has not sincerely pursued their complaint regarding the violations -t,/ 7-J,ii.)X " I ,lyt,' \'l' )' lj : iiroctri-.:r.l i!-" ',:i)-__-tii, ' ll4 by Mangalam Television Channel in the telecast of the voice clipping on 26.03.2017. So much is the commitment of NWMI, Kerala to the cause ofthe women joumalists in Kerala ! l15 CEAPTER 9 The Documenb produced before the Commission Tha following 60 documents have been refened to and considered by the Commission during the Inquiry and il rhis Repon. 9.1 Documrnts pmduced by CWknd CW2 for Mrngshn Television Cb.ntrel The following are the documents produced by CWI and CW2 MaDagbg Director and Chairman ofthe Mangalam Tetevision Channel respectively and perused by the Comrnission: (i) Copy of Memorandum of Association ofGN lnfo media private Limited daled 17.02.2009 According to CWI and CW2 Mangalam Television Charurel is the brand name ofthe news channel owned by G.N Info media private Limired- (ii) Copy ofAnicles of Associatioo ofcN lnfo media Private Limited. The Company is a "Private Company" within the meaning ofS. 3(l) (ni) and 2(35) ofthe Companies Ac! 1956. (iii) The name and address of the 84 staffrnemb€rs and their status as on27.06.2O1'l (iv) Permission !o uplink Non-news arrd curreIrt allairs Television Chamel dated 27.10.2010 of Ministry of I & B, covemment of tndia (v) Copy of Certificate of Incorpontion issued by Regisnar of Companics to cN Info media Privale Limited dated 18.09.2009. (vi) Copy of Communication granting renewal of the permission to downlink News & cunent affaiB Mangalam Television Channel, for a further period of 5 yeals dated 01.12.20 | 5 issued by Ministry of I & B. Governmcnt of India- Online (vii) Receip for Rs. 5,00,000/- remitted by M/s. cN IDfo media P\4. Lld., daled I 0.02.20 I 7 as pemission fee for down-linking. (viii) Editorial List ofMangalam as oo 25.08.2017 I l6 (ix) Signatory Details of GN lnfo media Private Limited as on 25 08.2017 (x) ktter oftermination ofprobation issued to Rishi K. Manoj by Mangalam Television Channel dated 24 05.2017 9.2 Documents obtrined from lVlaogahn Television Chrbnel otfrce by the Commissiotr during Locrl Inspettion on 15.09.2017. (i) Manglam Daity dated 27.03.2017 produced by CW3 R. Jayachandran, Chi€f Reporter of Mangalam (ii) C.D. ofthe Morning news programme ofMangalam Television Channel on26-03.2017 9.3 Documcnts produced by CWIT A.I( Srsecrdran MLA (i) Transcript ofrhe apology telecast by CWI R. Ajithkumar, CEO, Mangalam Television Chumel on 30.03.201? (ii) Code of Practice of News Broadcasters Association of lndia published August, 2008 (iii) Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Seclor issued by the Ministry ofl & B, Govemment of India in 2008 (iv) Hard copy ofthe lace book post dated 15.08.2017 ofCWl0 Nazila- Nazimuddin 9.4 Documents obtrined from Crime Branch ClD, Thiruvath.nlh.purrm through CW2l (i) Progress Report of iovestigation in Crime Nos. 5l/CfuOCW-liTVPM/ 2017, 52lCR /OCW-I/TVPM/2017 dated 14.06.20I7 aloog with copy of FIRS, statements ofaccused and witnesses and mahazar. (ii) Statement filed by G. Spargan Kumar IPS, District Police Chief and DIG of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City along with copy of perition filed by CWlo Nazila Nazimuddio before rhe State Police Chief, Hon'ble Chief Minister & Hon'ble ChiefJudicial Magistrat€, Thiru- vananthapuam, and copy of legal opinion obtained ftom District Govsmment Pleader & Public Prosecutor, Thiruvananthapuram (iii) C.D. of Audio files & Video files in Mangalam Television Channel otr 26.O3.2017 (iv) l ranscript ofthe audio clipping t€lecast by the Mangalarn Television Channel on 26.03.2017 n'l (v) Prcgress Repon ofinvesrigation datcd 30.0g.2017 (vi) C.D. containhg Ca.ll Details Records ofthe phone nurnbers of A.K. Sas€€DdraD MI-A (CW l7) and CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin- (vii) Cenified copies ofstate|n€nts of complainant and 2 witoess€s in CMP No. 8D/2017 ofCourt ofChiefJudicial Magistrat€, Ttiruvaoanthapuron (viii)Hard copy ofGoogle maps showing the locstion ofthe Office of Mangalam Television Channet and Lal Tourist Home, tower locdion of phooe numbers of CWl0 Nazila and CWli A.K. Saseendran ald surrounding arca (4 copies) (ix) Progess repofl ofinvestigation dated 03.10.2017 alonc with coo, of FtR andheport in C;ri. No. OS+SAori aa;&.fi.;;;;i' Museurn Police Station and copy of m.h^zar l/ in Crime No. 5 l/CR^rcW_ TVPMAoIT dar€d 03.04.2017 9.5 Documcrts rccciv.d po3t ty froE CWl0 Nrzih Nzinuddin o I Tr,tG.ZOlT (i) Petition for exempion from personal appearan ce drf{fd 27.06.2017 (ii) Alfidavit dared 27 -0f..2qt7 (iii) Certified copy ofprivate complaint b€for€ ChiefJudicial Magishare, Thiruvananthapuram dar& 05 -M-2Ol? (iv) l,etter ofappoinhent issrcd by Mangalam Tel€vision Channel dated 01,07.2016 (v) Intimation of extension of probation daled 3l.12.2016 (vi) Copy ofproceedings in CMP 8992017 ofthe Court ofchiefJudicial Magistrat€, Thiruvanantbapuram 9.6 DocqDetltr rcccivcd frcm. CW20 atc Secrecrry, prtsr Council of hdie, New Delhi (i) Itess Council Act, 1978 (iD Press Couocil (Procedure for Conducf ofMe€tings and Bushess) Regulations, I 979. (iii) Affidavit on behalfofPress CouDcil oftndia dated 22.06.2017 (iv) Copy ofAdjudicarions in K.L. Soni vs. The Editor, Guru ExDress .,, |, ' ' L'lt I t8 (v) Copy ofAdjudicatior in Smt. Usha Yadav vs. Thc Editor, Palrik4 Bhopat 9.7 Docune s obt ilcd boo Minbtry ofl & B' Gov.rnn. ofltrdi. 26.03.2017,27 .03.2017 3l -03.2017 (i) Copies of rhe complaints dated ' and 04.04.201 7 received fiom Dr, Pnde€p ICP., Kurian Benny, Saiju Menon and M. Sadta Vama & otbers resp€ctively against tel€cast of progranme by Mangalsm Television Cbannel on 26.03.2017 (ii) Copy ofNote file ofFile No' N-41015R3/2017-BC. III of Mioistrv of I & B on the comPlainrs r€c€ived. (iiD Report ofth€ Elecbonic Media Monitori4 Cent€, Governmeni of Mangalan Television Cbannel for India on tb€ Gomplaint 'gqin (iv) C.D- of the programme containiry the objectiouble matrcr. (v) Copy of Orrder consritutiDg llter-ministerial committee rmder s€ction 20 ofthe Cable Television Net Wor*s (RegulatioDs) Act, 1995 dated 25.M.2005. (vi) Copy of CHcr amending the order dated 25.04.2005 iss!€d on I1.11.201 I 9.8 Documcrts obtrincd from ttc News Brordcesting Strndrds Authority (NBSA) of Nt|'s Brord..lted Atroci ion (NBA) (i) Copy of lettci dat€d 22.09.201 7 from NBSA reg.ding the complaint received &om Network of Women in Media (NWfvfD, Kemla against Mangalam Television Cbanrcl (ii) Copies ofcomplaint ftom NWMI Keralq Prashob Kumar, and Saiju Menon and Response ftom NBSA sent by €mail. (iii) C.D. of Mangalarn Television clip 9.9 Copies of cr!6 lilcd before the Hon'blc H[h Court of Kenh rud ibc ordcr aod judgpent (i) C€rtified copy of B.A. No. 23?8/17 dared Oz.M.zOl7 (ii) Certified copy ofB.A. No. 2379117 dated O2.O4.2Ol'l (iii) Certified copy ofB.A. No.2380/lTdated 02-04.2017 (iv) Ce*ified copy of B.A No.25,10/17 dded 05.04.2017 ,l /ii I, T t-!{r-,r - -': I t9 (v) Certified copy ofCommon order in B-A- Nos. 2378. 23?9. 2380, 2539 d 2540 f2O | 7 d^td t2.U.2O | 7 (vi) Copy ofW.P. (Civil) No. 21095/17 filed by SajEn Varghese against Union of India & Others dared 23.06.2017 (vii) Certified copy of sialement filed by Assistant Solicitor Ceneral on b€halfofUnion oflndia in $y'p@ No. 2109512017 (vin) Certified copy ofjudgrn€nr in WpO No - 2rc95A}l7el dated 08.08.20 I 7 9.10 (Xher docuDcnt! rGf.rrcd to by tbe CoD|ris.bn (i) Prcss clipping oflndian Express Daily daed 27.03-2017 under the caption "slesze call halts Sas€eDdran" (ii) PrEss clipping ofDec,can Chronicle Daily dated 30.03.2017 under the caption "Tnpped women paoellists cry foul" and other n€ws reports on th€ telecast oftbe voice clipping telecast by Mangalam T€levision on 26.03.2017 (iii) Press clip,ping ofDecrcan Chrodcle Daily dated 01.04.2017 under tbe caption "Resignation spr€e at Television ClraDnef' (iv) Press clippring ofKera.la Kaurnudi Daily dared 30.03.2017 under the caption "Psychology of moral plice behind the chaonel ncws" repo( ofa stdement issued by 37 leading writers of Malayalam (v) Prcss clippilg ofthe Hirdu Daily dared 19.06.2017 Under tlrc caption 'Stingjoutralism is Dot investigative jowralism' (vi) ExFrt opinion given by Sbri Adoor Gopalakrishun Dated 19.09.2017 (vii) Expert Opinion given by Dr. Scbastian Paul dared 24.10.2017 120 CHAPTER IO Local lnspection The following is the Memorandrum of Local Inspection of Mangalam Television Channel premises conducted by this Commission on 10.1 Introd uction I.A. No. 18/2017 was filed by the Advocate for CW 17 Shri A.K. Saseendran MLA praying that in order to corr€ctly appreciate the evidence already recorde{ it is highly necessary to conduct a spot inspection of the studio including News Roonr, Edit Room etc. of the Mangalam Television Channel by the Commission in the presence of the parties and the Advocates appearing for them. It is pointed out that in the course of the Inquiry when the witnesses were examind namely, CW 13 Sandhya and CW 6 M. Lakshmi Mohan, they deposed that when the news item which is the subject matter ofthe inquiry was aired, there was interferenc€ from the Edit Room. It was also stated that the audio speaker enabling the News Reader and the Guests participating in the programme sitting in lhe news room to hear the voibe clipping was discormected by the persons in-charge of the Edit Room. Having heard both parties and after perusing the records, it appeared to this Commission that a local inspection of Mangalam Television Channel's News Room, Studio and Office will be helpful to understand the evidence already adduced. Accordingly, the above l.A. for the local inspection was allo*'ed- Notices were issued to the C.E.O. R. Ajithkumar and Chief Operating Officer of Mangalam Television Channel, Smt. ,;^ l i lt i tvt'-. / \^t l2l Sunitha Devadas besides informing the Corms€l concemed. They were directed to make necessary arrangements for the local inspoction of the Mangalam Television Channel premises on 15.09.2017 at ll a-m. Th€ Television channel was also directed to ensur€ the presence ofall the staff joumalists, including non-joumaliss and the technical staff who were on duty on 26.03.2017 excep the staffwho teft the channel thercafter. 10.2 Report of Ircal Inspoction The Commission arrived at the office of the Mangalam Television Charmel situated near Aristo Junctiorq Thiruvananthapuram. The Commission and the staffwere received by Chief Operating Officer Smt. Sunitha Devadas, CW 4 Shd M.p. Santhosh, Director ofNews and Shri Suresh Kumar, Unit Manager ofthe Mangalam establishment at Thiruvananthapuram. Govemment Pleader, Shri Jayasurya, Counsel for CW I and CW l7 were prcsent. Investigating Officers in the crimes rcgist€red in connection with the telecast of the voice clipping CW 2l Shanavas and CW 22 Bijumo4 Dy.S.Ps as summoned by the Commission to assist in the local inspection were also present. Commission was accompanied by P.S.O. Prakash who was deputed by the Police Headquarters for lrrsonal security, The police party who accompanied the Commission from the Guest House werc directed to remain outside the Mangalam premises. It was asc€ftained fiom the Chief Operating Offrcer of Mangalam Television Charurel that there is no inlerruption of their live broadcast going on due to the local inspection of tle Comrnission. It was suggested that the Studio/News Room can be inspected at the end of inspection as the live programme was due to end by 12.30 p.m. CW 6IU. Lakshmi (fii.a\, .,t)?'l ":l1r,r"'. *;:,. .1e:i 122 Mohan was anchoring the moming news progranme. Today's progamme was on the problem of self-financing Medical Colleges in Kerala. 3 guests were attending the live programme anchored by CW 6. The guests were Shri Shajir Khan, Shri Akhil, ABVP Leader and Anand Krishnan, KSU General Secrctary. ln spite ofthe direction of this Commission to ensure the presenc€ ofthe staff who were on duty on 26.03.2017, nrany werc absent. Various reasons for their absence like leave, off duty, shift duty etc. were given. The atrsence of the following staffwere noticed. 1. ChiefTechnical Officer Shri Syam Kumar- It was informed by the Chief Q€rating OfiEcer that Shri Arun Kumar, System Administrator will explain the technical aspects- 2. CW10 Nazila Nazimuddin. She is report€d to be offduty today. Chief Operating Officer stated that CWIO is now News Reader and attending duty regularly at the Charmel. 3. CW 8 S.V. Pradeep 4. CW 7 Firos Sali Mohammed 5. CW I R. Ajithkumar 6. CW 2 Sajan Varghese 7. Rudra Krishnan A list of the staffon duty in the moming shift of 15.09.2017 is obtained. The following are the staffon duty: i) Gopakumar Sadasivan Nair - Desk Chief ii) Priya Suresh - Reader iii) Samuel Mathew - Breakine t23 iv) Lakshmi Mohan - Reader v) Mathew - Wasp vi) Navami Dinesh - Production vii) Gokul G. Nair - Input viii) Ranjima K.R - Wasp ix) Arun Kumar -MCR x) Vishnu P.V. - Sormd Recordist xi) Shaiju M - Online Editor xii) Jishnu B - Visual Editor xiii) Siva S. - Visual Ediior 10.2.1 A BridDecription of Mrngebn Ofiice Building It is three floor building, i.e., the ground floor, I floor, II floor and III floor. The entrance of the building is also the reception a!ea. Smt. Renjitha Prabhu is the receptionist at the ground floor. Behind the reception area is the Office of tle Chief Operation Officer Smt. Sunitha Devadas. olr dre right side of the rec.eption arca is the entrance to the Mangalam Television Channel's News Room, Studios, News Desh Edit, Production Control Room etc. Just after the entrance door is the make- up rrxrm on the right side, adjouming to which is a small room for processing news and a small studio for airing recorded prograrnmes. On the left side is the main studio for live programmes where CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan was anchoring the moming news programme. Behind the main studio is the News Desk. It is asc€rtained that the marcimum number of Desk strength is eight. Edit Section is adjacent to the News Desk. On the left side of the News Desk and Main studio is Produstion t24 Control Room (PCR). Adjacent to the Edit room is the voice booth and behind rx*rich is the Server Room. From the ground floor there is a staircase to the Conference Hall on the first floor, where we were seated when arrived for inspection. From the l$ floor there is a staircase to the second floor where the News Bureau of the Mangalam Daily is firnctioning. R Ajith Kumar is the C.E.O./Associate Editor of Mangalam News Paper as seen from the name board of the office room of R Ajithkumar who is today absent. Adjacent to this room is the office room of the Chief Editor of Mangalam Daily' Sabu Varghese, brother of Sajan Varghese (CW 2) is the ChiefEdiior' Marketing Section and Editorial Desk ofMangalam News Paper are also functioning in the second floor. It is gathered that News Bureau is common for Television channel and Mangalam News Paper. Chief Reporter and Head of Investigating Team R. Jayachan&an (CW 3) was present. There is a lobby for the reporters at the enaance to the News Bureau. Accounts Section ofthe Mangalam Unit is also functioning at this floor. From the second floor, there is a staircase to the third floor. It is stated by Chief Operating O{ficer and CW 4 Santhosh that the programme Edit Unit of the Mangalam Television Channel is on the third floor. There is also the library/Archives of the television pxtgrammes. Graphic Roorn of Television Channel is also functioning at this floor. Graphics necessary for the television channel are prepared here. -r .l .. ,l::-,u,' ,'l ' ';"' \.i, ltrocf,i--1C i ::l -!j* ,/s.i t25 Mangalam Online section is also firnctioning at this floor. News clippings for web pages, Utube etc., are F€pared herc. 10.2.2 Impression of the Commission From the above, it appears that Mangalan Unit at Trivandrum consists of the Mangalam Television Channel, Mangalam News paper and Mangalam Online and it has a singe unit Manager. As some of the witness€s stated during oral evidence before the Commission, Mangalam Television paper Charmel, Mangalam News and Mangalam Online are o;rrating on the basis of s;merry, i.e, the facility and infrastructu€ are common for all the three and productively used. t0.3 The object of Local Inspection As far as the Commission is concemed the object of the local inspection is to understand the functioning ofa Television News Charmel and to find answers to the following questions which are pertinent during inquiryr I ) How or in what rnanner a news prcgramme is aired by a Television News Channel ? 2) Who are all present when a news programrne is on air ? 3) Who are in-charge/responsible regarding the contents of the programme ? 4) What is the mle of the anchorA.{ews Reader ? 5) Who has control over the News Reader ? 6) Who operated/played the pen drive containing the voice clipping ? ! | 126 7) Whether the audio speaker at the news room can be disconnected andbywhom ? 8) Whether there are binding editorial guidelines in the Mangalam Television Channel ? 10.3.1 The above quctions ane rnswered as now undcrstood by the Commission from the local inspoction as follows: I ) How or in what m:rnner a news progr nme is aired by a Television News Channel ? Ans : A news programme originates from the News Desk and the Edit Section attached to it. Various news items recorded and brought by reporters and the local, national and otler news received online are stored in the Server (Central Operations Room). Visuals and audios are recorded separately and stored in separate devices. The Server is managed by the Chief Technical Officer assisted by two junior officers - system administrators. When a news item is given to the Edit unit, the video editors mixes it with videos and audios and pass on to the News Desk and from there to the Programme Contol Room (pCR), and ftom there to the network and after giving the programme a name retumed to the P.C.R. Only the news pnoducer in rhe PCR can play the file and what is to be read as news appears in the t€leprompter in the studio (News Room). The anchor/News Reader facing the camera placed adjacent to the teleprompter can rcad it to the viewers of the f,tr,, : tt I -tyY t27 channel facing them. This arrangement gives an impression to the viewers that the anchor/Irlews Reader is talking to them. During news pmgrunme the News Reader who keeps contact with fhe News Pmducen in the PCR can get inshuctionV feedbach through the 'talk back' fitted at hiyher ears. At the time of inspectioq Mr- S- Gopakumar was the Desk Chief. There were five others with him at the News Desk. Eight is the maximum desk st€ngtb- At the Edit suit attached to the News Desk three video editors were on duty. They control the length and contents of visuaUvoice or both of the news. For example, if the video/audio is of5 minute duration they can reduce it to 3 rrinutes or increase the duration. It is gafhercd that 'edius' is the software used to edit news by the video editors. The editors and producers can see the news being aired in the screens in front of them. At the time of inspection news regarding Nadir Shaw in connection with the Dleep case was being broadcast by the News Reader Lakshmi Mohan. At the PCR" the news prducer was giving inshuctioq thmugh a microphone for broadcasting the news. In the PCR there are s€parat€ consoles for audio and video control and separate persons are in-charge- There ar€ a total number of six producers in the PCR. One producer is at the microphone giving instructions for news. Two are at the audio and video rcsp€ctively. Another pmducer is in-charge of the console producing scrolls. The software used for this is called 'Wasp'. This is real time graphics.-rl .r /' i.q_-.1.-.' f: [rl 128 Another person is assisting the wasp. The 6D pmducer is in-charge of advertisements. Of the six persons on duty in the PC& it is gathered that two are joumalists and the remaining four are technicians- 2) Who are all present when a news programme is on air ? Ans : As stated under question No.l, there is the AnchorA',lews Reader broadcasting the news, who is seen by the viewers, and behind him/her are the Editors at the news desk (up to eight) three at the Edit suit, six produc.ers in tle PCR and the System Administrator at the Server. J) Who are in-charge/responsible regarding the Contents of the prograrnme ? Ans : The first person responsible is the reporter who obtained the news and given to the Television Channel and the Chief Editor who has overall control. The next are the news editors at the desk, followed by the video/audio editors at the Edit Suit and the producers at the PCR. The last person responsible is the anchorAlews Reader who only presents the news programme as per instructions from the PCR 4) What is the role of the anchor/lrlews Reader ? Ans : The anchor/news producer presents the programme in his/her own way depending on her grasp/control over the subject. t29 As already answered trnder question No.3, the News R€ader broadcasts as per instructions from the PCR and also reads the news from the teleprornpter which is produced by the News Editors at the News flesk, Edit Suit and producen in the PCR s) Who has contol over the News Reader ? Ans : As answered under question Nos. 3 and 4 above, News Reader is controlled by the News Editors and producers from the PCR. There is a hand-control at the Deskin fiont of the News Reader through which the anchorA.lews Reader can control the teleprompter, i.€. to get preview, nex! run, previous, firnction, audio top, black/screen/or/ off. At the end of a prog€mme the anchor can switch off the teleprompter. This is mostly done at the instnrction of the producers received through .talk back'. 6) Who operated/played the pen drive containing the voice clipping ? Ars : The voice clipping was operated./played by one ofthe three video/audio editors at the Edit Suit and thereafter passed on to the news edito$ and producers atthe PC& who ahed the voice clipping. The anchor/News Reader has no role in playing the voice clipping.One ofthe video editors demonstrated as to how an audio,/video clipping is played- +q 130 As answer to the Commission's question as to who was in-charge of the Edit on 26.03.2017, it was stated by CW4 Shri.M.P. Sattthosh that Shri Binu Mahesh, Video Editor was on duty on that day. It is reported that today his duty starts from 2 P.m. It is ascertained thal the Edit shift has the following time schedule : 6 A'M. to 2 P.M. 8 A.M. to 4 Plv1. 2 P.M. to 10 P.M. 4 P.M. to 12 P.M' 10P'M. to 7 A'M' 7) Whether the audio speak€r at the studio/News Room can be disconnected and bY whom ? Ans: The anchor/news producer presents the programme ln hiVher own way depending on her grasp/control over the subject and under irstruction from the PCR As already answered under question No.3, the News Reader broadcasts as per instructions from the PCR and also reads ihe news fiom the teleprompter which is produced by the News Editors at the News Desk, Edit suit and Producers in the PCR News Reader is controlted by rhe News Editors and Producers from the PCR. There is a hand-contml at the Desk in fiont of the News Reader through which the anchor/ News Reader can control the teleprompter, i.e to get preview, next, run, previous, function, audio top, black/screen/ on off. At the end of a prograrme the anchor can switch off the teleprompter. This is mostly done at the instruction ofthe producers received through talk back. ,/, l 131 8) Whether there are binding editoriat guidelines in the Mangalam Television Charmel ? Ans : It is ascertained fiom CW4 M.p- Santhosh that there are no written guidelines for the Channel. He infomred that on every moming and evening Editorial Team meeting is held to discuss the programmes for the day after the controversy on 26.03.2017 10.4 Genenl Remerks : CW 2l and CW 22 investigating officers in the connested crimes stated that they took into custody iiom the Mangalam Television Channel, the hard disk which contained the copy of the contents of the pen drive containing the audio clipping which was aired on 26.03.2017. They stated that no pen drive was taken into custody from the Mangalam Television Channel. Server Room is stoiage of all progranmes. Arun Kumar, system administrator explained that the storage is for a period of 5 &ys normally and thereafter it is deleted. If the programne is necessa4r for future use, it is preserved in the library/archived in a tape peserved in video logger. The voice clipping involved in this case was retrieved by CW 22 Bijumon, Dy.S.P., Hi-tech Cell from the video logger during investigation. A copy of the voice clipping in C-D. has been produced before tie Commission during inquiry. At the rcquest of the Commission during inspection, a C.D. containing the entire news prograrnme anchored by CW 6 Laksbni Mohan from to A.M. to 12.30 A.M- on 26-03.2017 during which the voice clipping was aired, is handed over to the Comnission. - \ , dI Itz Chief At the request of the Commission, CW 3 R' Jayachandraq a copy of Reporter of Mangalam Daily handed over to the Commission tel€cast ofthe voice the Mangalam Daily dated 27'03'2017 reporting the the Mangalam Daily clipping. Commission had also requested copies of not readily available' dated 28.03.2017 and 29.03.2017 which are inspected the News Towards the end of the Inspection, Cornmission as to how the Room/Studio where CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan explained under question No' news is broadcast by the News Reader, as explained was given as Office 3. lt is ascertained that Teena Krishnan' whose name to the Commission Assistant to C.E.O- in the list of employees fumished that she was during inquiry is now working as Producer' She admitted 2017 at the time of working as Secretary to C.E.O' Ajithkumar in March' airing ofthe news on 26.03.2017' The local inspection was concluded at 12'30 P'M' .. I tlI t i, --4' ^,1 ll3 CHAPTER 11 Arguments on Behalf of the parties 11.1 The argument for CW 17 A.K. Seeeendren MLA The Counsel for CVr'l7 A.K. Saseendran MLA filed notes of argument. The main contentions are as followsi The terms of reference can be considered in seriatim. First one is to inquire into the veracity of the voice clipping said to b€ that ofa Minister of the State, telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017. Evidence is available on record that during the course of the news t€lecast made on 26.03.2017 which started at l0 am in the moming the day of ofticial opening of Mangalam Television Channel into air, a news item including a voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the Stare was telecast. Shri A.K- Saseendran MLA, CW 17 in his statement dated 25.05-2017 as well as in his detrnsition nade before this Hon'ble Commission on 24.06.2017 categorically denied the said allegation and stated that the voice clipping telecas by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 allegedly that ofhim is not his voice clipping. He did not make conversation to anyMy. So there is no occasion to have such a conversation or to record such a conversation by anybody. The persons belonghg to Mangalam Television Channel who appeared before the Commission had given evidence said that it is that of CW17. 134 Now the voice clipping said to be that of Minister may be considered' A compact disc containing the copy of the voice clipping is produced before this Hon'ble Commission by CW 21. It is admitted by CW I that what is aired as voice clipping of State Minister ort' 26'O3'2017 is conversation between two persons- He said that the voice clipping received by the Mangalam Television Channel was aired in its full form without any editing. CW I himself has admitted that the voice clipping contained only sound ofa male person. It is come on evidence that the voice clipping is an edited version of a conversation between two persons, particularly through the evidence of CW 6 I-akshmi Mohan, who was tlrc news reader at the relevant time and presented the particular news item. Further CW 13 Sandhya S.N. who was in the studio of Mangalarn Television Channel at the relevant time when the news item was aired as a guest stated before this Commission that the voice clipping heard during the course of the discussion which was telecast was that of a male making conversation with a lady in bedroom. She further stated that on hearing it she realized that it is a part of a voluntary sex conversation between two individuals. She also specifically stated that aidng of such a voice clipping is inappropriate- She further stated that in hearing the voice clipping it is clear that the conversation and editing the female voice- Further the evidence of CW 14, Al-Neema Ashraf who was a joumalist with the Mangalam Television specifically stated that in the voice clipping the sormd of a male person alone is included and on hearing the voice clipping it is clear that the male person was responding to the conversation should have been telecast by the channel. The evidence adduced by CW 2l is also very material and relevant in this aspect. CW 2l is the investigating officer in the crime registered against the Mangalam Television personals in this matter. He specifically , ,'.i. ,':I.--,)'' (ii"' 'ij) 135 depos€d that the voice clip is an edited one. The evidence of CW 22, Bijumon E.S., Dy.S.P., Hi-tech cell is also relevant in this aspect- He is a witness having expertise and he specifically stated that the phone used for recording, original voice clipping and laptop used for editing the voice clipping are either concealed or desfoyed puposely to deshoy evidence. He also deposed that the voice clip is edited version of conversation rccorded on different occasions and aired as one single conversation and therefore there is clear case of conspirary behind this. He very clearly deposed that the genuineness of the voice cannot be examined or analysed without geting the original voice recording. From the above it is clear that the voice clipping stated to be that of a Minister of the State Govemment aired by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03-2017 is not a genuine recorded conversatiorq but it is an edited version of some conversation between two persons and telecast the male voice alone with ulterior motive. Next it is to be considered, what is the news item aired by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017. The news item stated that ".Jrol(o'lo)Jola)'l cu(m crilocucoJo @crueJ@Jof,e) oil5mcorrd o(fir)'l Gogilet (R)oef,csfiDo rnsoro1". rt means that the Minister has made sex related conversation with a lady who is a widow and who had come with a complaint to ventilate her grievances to the Minist€r. The specific case was that the lady who was involved in the issue was a widow and homemaker who was having a complaint in some official matters and approached the Minister for redressal of the sarne- What is the evidence come on record regarding the sarne. The clear and categorical evidence available before this Comrnission is that the alleged conversation in the voice clipping is not J 136 nade to a widow homemaker who approached the MinisGr for redressal of some grievance. But the evidence adduced by the personals of Mangalam Television Chamel is to the effect that the conversation in the voice clipping was recorded by one of its employees. So it is clear that the news item aired by Mangalam Television Channel was a false news. It was so done with a malicious intention to tamish the image of CW 17 with ulterior motive and to increase the rating of the Television channel. A false and fabricared news, affecting the very existence of the State Ministry was aired by Mangalan Television Channel. When the substratum ofthe news item is fraudulent and the voice clipping telecast in support ofthe same was also a manipulated and created one, the entire news item and voice clipping can be considered only as fraudulent, false and created one. In this aspect the evidence tendered by CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan, CW 5 Rishi K. Manoj, CW4 M.P. Santhosh, CW 9 Manjith Varma are also relevant- Apai from the evidence mentioned above, the evidence given by Lakshmi Mohan to the effect that the news aired on 26.03.2017 as such was not true is ro be considered in view of the other evidence available on record. It has also come on record that CW I has made a public apology appearing in the channel on the fourth day of the transmission of lhe news. It is clear from the apology made by CW 1, which he admitted before the Commission. that the news item was a created one by 8 senior joumalists of the channel. He also admitted in the apology that it is part ofa sting operation and a lady joumalist was appointed for the task. These aspects are, though denied by CW I by giving false evidence before this Commission, indisputable materials demonstrating the falsity of the entire episode. CW 6 the reader of the t37 news item has specifically admitted these facts and from her evidence it is clear that CW I and CW8 along with CW 3 Jayachandran is the master brain were fabricating a false voice clipping and attributed the same against CW 17. The chronology ofevents culminated in telecasting the disputed voice clipping is discemable from the evidence adduced bv cw6. The evidence of CW 5 and CW 9 when read along with the evidence of CW 14 and CW 15 it is clear that the voice clipping telecast by Mangalarn Television Channel on 26.03.2017 is a fabricated voice clipping creared by CW l, CW 3, CW 7 and CW g along with one other senior joumalists in the editorial board of the Mangalam Television Channel- The evidence adduced by CW l, CW 3, CW 7 and CVr' 8 clearly show that those persons are giving false evidence before this Commission. All the questions which cannot be disputed even at the face of the facts available on record are denied or disputed by these witnesses, in order to save their face and in the attempt to show a fabricated, false voice clipping telecast by them is a genuine one. So going through the evidence it is clear tlrat the voice clipping aired by Mangalam Television Charmel on 26.03.2017 claiming to be that of a Minister of the State of Kerala is not genuine and the same is a fabricated and false material only to see that some breaking news (bomb) is made _ , -asu&; '' +,1, EIKochi'30'\ /at ]itr 138 on the first day of its official transmission and to obtain a high rating in the first day itself. ln this aspect the evidence tendered by CW 14 Al-Neema Ashraf, Rishi K. Manoj and Manjith Varma regarding the workshop organized by the channel and the classes glven by CW I and CW 3 r€quiring the journaliss to make the breaking news (bomb) and to see that the Ministers in the Govemment are resigned on the basis of the same or to see that at least one MLA is resigned, and to create such news in that regard. Another important aspect in respect of the veracity of the voice clip in question is the non-availability of the digital equipment in which it was recorded. The digital evidence lies in the memory device of the digital equipment and also the digital evidence requires the seizure of the susp€cted digtal equipment. Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. When the digital equipment/computer/mobile phone or any other devise by which the original conversation was recorded is not available and no conditions in Section 65 B is complied with, the copy of any sort of electronic record would be inadmissible in evidence- The case of the Mansalam Television Channel and thei people like CW I, CW 3 etc. are to the effect that they did not get the original recorded tapes or recorded version of the conversation/voice clipping. Whatever they obtained was telecast in its entirety. But the evidence tendered by CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan, Rishi K. Manoj and Manjith Varma belies the case of CW 1, CW 3, CW 4 and CW 8. It is to be noted that Lakshmi Mohan is still in service of Mangalam Television Charmel and whatever she deposed before 139 the Commission is as an employee of the Mangalam Television Channel, but she was constrained to depose some true facts. Even now she is continuing in Mangalam Television Channel studio. She was seen in the studio working as an anchor ofnews programme. So there is no reason to disbelieve her version regarding the voice clipping to the effect that Ajith Kumar and Pradeep stated to her, immediately beforc she entered the studio to read the news regarding the clipping and the assurance given by Ajiftkumar and Pradeep that the br€aking news is factually conect. This would show that these persors have created false news in order to get a high rating and on the insistence made by CW I to have a special item on drc opening day to give surprise to other charmels. It is also clear from the evidence of CW 4 M.P. Santhosh that the news to the effect that Minister has made rmdesirable conversation with a housewife who approached him wilh a grievance is heanay. This was deposed by CW 4 Santhosh when he was asked whether the news item aired as such was false news or not. As submitted eadier, when we are considering the veracity of the voice clipping, the availability of the equipment by which the voice clipping was recorded is an important aspect. It is not before the Commission or it is not available with the investigating agency who investigated the crime with regard to this incident. It has come on eviden@ that when CW I and other officers of Mangalam Television Channel approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing application for anticipatory bail as B.A- No. 253912017 and cormected matters, there was a query made by the Hon'ble High Court with r€gard to th€ orieinal-, I 'JrL. 140 equipmentmobile phone in which voice clipping was recorded. On behalf of CW 1 and others it was submitted before the Court that the original equipment can be produced before the investigating agency and for that purpose the case was adjourned. Strangely, on the evening of the same day a complaint was made by CW 1 before the Trivandrum Museum Police Station that the bag containing the mobile phone in which the voice clipping was recordd a laptop etc- were stolen away from his car. This complaint was registered by the Museum Police Station as Crime No. 549nU7 and after investigation the investigating officer found that the complaint is false and the complaint was referred as false also. The evidence ofCW 21 Shanavas A.' Dy.S.P. is very important and relevant in this aspect. He specifically deposed that due to the non- co-op€rdion of the accused in the criminal case the original audio clipping and the device used for recording and editing could not be recovered and seized. In this regard falsity of evidence tendered by CW I, CW 3, CW 4, CW 7 and CW 8 are to be viewed seriously- The manner in which CW8 S.V. Pradeep behaved before the Commission even challenging, defaming and thfeatening the Commission is a matter which require deprecation. The subsequent face book posting of the above said witness is also to be deprecated. He proved himself to be a conspirator and manipulator of the entire episode along with CW 1, CW 3 and CW 4. Next point is, who is the person recorded the alleged voice clipping. There is no evidence with regard to that. CW I, CW 3, CW 4 and CW 8, though giving false evidence stated before the Commission, stated that d % ,l ,' -J+-t , F7**n'.lil'/.' ----rl.*9 l4l they did not how who recorded ttre voice clipping When there is no evidence regarding the recording, the persons indulged in the conversation, by whom the clipping was recorded and regarding the device used for recording, it cannot be stated at any stretch ofirnagination the voice clipping is a genuine one. The veracity or genuinely of the voice clipping is to be proved by Mangalam Television Channel which telecast the same. Even according to them, voice clipping telecast on 26-03.2017 is not original or genuine conversation. It was a copied or manipulated or edited conversation. So it cuts the root of the veracity of the voice clipping and it is comtpt or fabricared voice clipping. The voice clipping telecast is apparently an edited version. It is srated by the witnesses tlnt lhe voice record in the clipping is that of a male and it is part of a conversation between a male and a female. The portion ofthe female conversation is beautifully edited and removed and this voice clipping was created. This Hon'ble Commission required CW I and CW 2 to produce the original voice clipping before the Commission. They have not done it. It was clearly put in the form of a question by the commission to CW I to the effect that if original voice clipping and device recorded the conversation is produced, then only Mangalam Television Channel can show that the news item and voice clipping are true and factually conect. CW I answered to that question that Mangalam Television Channel telecast the voice clipping without any editing and in the sarne form as it was received. The non_production of unedited original voice clipping before the Commission or police by Mangalam Television Channel proves clearly that the voice clipping is , 11 i@,;- I _--. The circumstances l€ding to the conversation or the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State telecast by the Mangalam Television Charmel on 26.03.2017: lt is a clear case of conspiracy, mala fide intention and illegal motive on the part of the Mangalarn Television Channel personals in order to increase the TRP rating ofthe channel on the first day of its official teleca.* icelf. It is come out in evidence that even before the Mangalam Television Channel started telecast and at the time when the newly recruited joumalists of the channel were given training there was clear instruction from CWl and CW3 to the effect that the news should be created making at least one of the Ministers are resigned fiom the Ministry. It is clear that CW3 has given specific direction to,the newly recruited joumalists regarding rnaking of exclusive bombs (exclusive breaking news). CWI wanted employees to create news by using any method. The evidence of CWl4 Al-Neema Ashraf, CW5 Rishi K. Manoj, CW9 Manjith Varma and that of CW15 A.M. Yazir who were the joumalists working in the Mangalam Televisioj - . , r].rt\-hy i^{xoct.t.30 lt 143 Channel show tlnt CW I and other higher-ups in the Mangalam Television Channel wanted to create some news which give them breaking particularly in the opening day irself. Apart from that it has come out in evidence that an investigation team was constituted by the Television Channel in order kr collect news using or adopting any method. It is the case of CW 14 that she did not join that group as ro create or to collect news by using any method is not agreeable for her. It is also come out in evidence that the particular news item and the vorce clipping is a product of the criminal conspiracy wherein CW l, CW 3, CW 4, CW 7, CW 8 etc- are actively involved. This fact is discemable from the apologr made by CW I to the viewers. So ttre circumsrances leading to the telecast of the fabricated voice clipping is the malicious intention of the Mangalam Television Channel authorities to incrcase the rating even from the very beginning of its official telecasting. From the evidence adduced before this Hon'ble Commission, which are pointed out in the foregoing p would clinchingly show that the voice clipping was edited and fabricated with mala fi{s htention and the persons behind or pennns acted behind the said illegal activity are the higher-ups of the Mangalam Television Channel which include CW l, CW 4, CW 7 and CW8 and others who arc responsible for the airing of the news item and voice clipping on the relevant date. CW 2 who is the Chairman of the company which owns the Mangalam Television Channel and also involved in the afrairs of the channel, cannot wash his hands away. The airing of the alleged voice clipping and news item is clearly an illegal act. It violates the decency and morality. Evidence is available 144 same is offending the morality, cultural and ethical standards and also an illegal act- Mangalam Television Channel on the fint day of telecast itself was using manipulated voice recording of some person which is available in pom websites on telephone sex chatting to increase its rating. It was attributed to CW 17 as a part of the attempt to tamish his image and thereby leading to his resignation fiom the Ministry, with ulterior motive. In this aspect the evidence tendered by CW 15 is very relevant. The airing of the voice clipping is also against the guidelines issued by the Certral Government and the News Broadcasters Association of lndia. It offends the self regulation guidelines for the broadcasting sector issued by the Govemment of India and also the Code of practice published by the News Broadcasters Association of India. The norms of joumalistic conduct published by the Press Council of India are also plainly violated. The news item and the voice clipping aired by the Mangalam Television Channel violate the decency and morality to be kept in publishing any item of news for viewing by the general public. It offends the right to life guaranteed under Article 2 I of the Constitution of India and also the right to fieedom of speech and expression as provided under Article l90a) of the Constitution. The privacy of persons whoever made the convenauon, if it is a real conversation, has been interfered by the Mangalam Television Channel. The act committed by the Mangalam Channel as stated above is also in clear violation ofthe Fundamental Duties t4s enshrined in Article 5lA of the Constitution whereby it is provided that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, !o renounce practice derogatory to the dignity ofwomen. The act committed by the above said persons of Mangalam Television Channel is an act derogatory to the dignity of women hood. They have done it with mala fide intention and motive to improve their business. CW 17 has been dragged into it with ulterior motive on extraneous consideration. The Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to s€e that a self regulation guideline for the Broadcasting sector was introduced by the Ministry of Broadcasting, Governrnent of lndia which is poduced before this Commission. The intnduction of the said guidelines says that a need has been felt to regulate the contents going into public domain to ensur€ conformity with acceptable contemporaqr community standads and to protect the vuherable sections fiom hamrful and undesirable contents of Television. The principles behind the guidetine, it is stared in point No. 9 that guidelines ar€ intended to guide Broadcasting Service providers and are based on enduring principles that all programming should not mislead, cause offence or lead to hann, particular to the vulnerable. One of the principles available in clause No. 11 is rhat great care and sensitivity should be exercised to avoid shocking or offending audience. Clause 1l(e) is also relevant in this aspect. Clause 12 (iv) with regard to the responsibility of the Chief Editor also may be noted. CWl, the Chief Editor cannot shirk his resporsibility to plead ignorance regarding the content of the news itern or voice clip broadcast. The guidelines in Chapter lV particularly deating wift the News and Current Affairs N & CA) prograrnming is more important and relevant. It is stated as item No. 2 in Chapter IV that news should be reported wirh due accuracy and ',tr i" tl | '\'-r' lblq -. -' t46 presented with due impartiality. Accuracy requires the verification (to the fullest extent possible) and presentation ofall facts that are necessary to understand a particular event or issue. Clause 14.1 to 14.4 regarding the privacy of individuals are also relevant and important in this aspect. In the heading Audio visual presentation, Clause 2 says that any scene/clipping/footage depicting excessive violence, cruelty, obscenity and vulgarity that is not suitable for viewing by children and in family setting must be avoided. As required by the self-regulation guidelines, the News Bmadcasters Association of India published a Code of Practice. Section - I Frmdamental Principles in the Code of Practice are very relevant in the issue before tlfs Hon'ble Commission. Under Section - 2 in the heading of Principles of self-regulation it is stated that "accuracy is the heart of news television business". Clause - 5 under the said heading is also relevant. Clause 9 deals with sting operations which also required consideration by this Hon'ble Commission. Press Council of India has issued Norms of Joumalistic Conduct, 2010 edition of the said norms is available on record. Though these norms are applicable to the print media, the principles of ethics dealt with in the norms issued by the Press Council of Indi4 a statutory body is relevant. It clearly says under the heading accuracy and faimess that the Press shall eschew publication of inaccurate. baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted- material. It is also stated that while it is the duty ofthe press to expose the wrong doings that come to their notice, such report need to be backed by irrefutable facts and evidence. Heading No. 9 regarding the intewiews and voice conversation it is provided that, press shall not tape record anyone's conversation without that prerson's knowledge or -.. 1 tl , I.,U ' Kochi'30 147 consent, except where the recording were necessary to protect the Joumalists in a legal action or for other compelling good reasons. lt is also stated that the Press shall prior to publicatiorL delete offensive epithets used during such conversation. In clause 26 where investigative joumalism, its norms and pararneters are contemplated, it is stated thaf strict standards of faimess, accurary of facf should be adopted in rhe matt€r of reporting. It is also stated that the private life, even of a public figure is his own. Exposition or invasion of his personal privacy or private life is not pemrissible unless there is clear evidence that the wrong doings in question for a reasonable nexus with the misuse of his public position or pnwer and as an adverse impact on public interest. On considering all the above noted provisions in the guidelines, Code of Practice and the norms of conduct, the entire episode created by Mangalam Television Channel is clearly illegal and an offence touching the privacy ofa person apart from manipulation ofrccords and evidence. While considering the point of reference, an important issue which crop up for serious consideration of this Commission is joumalists ethics. The joumalism is a profession- Press, it may be the print media or the electronic media, is considered to be the 4d pillar of the democratic State. lt is also called the 4t estate. Like any other profession, the joumalism also should be guided by principles and ethics in their profession. The underlying principle that govems the prcss either print or electronic, is that gathering and selling of news and views is essentially a public trust. lt is the same kind of tust which is implied in the relationship between a doctor and patient. Though medical men work under discipline ofprofessional code which is statutorily recognized and /-xD \itn_I a\-;9IKochi-30 ii; 148 they are applied to old recognized medical degrees, the joumalism is a free profession subject to the extemal restrictions ofthe laws ofthe land. But a dishonest doctor can harm at the worst only a few dozen or a few score of his patients while the dishonest joumalist may poison the minds ofhundreds or thousands or millions of the general polity- Every news item prepared by the joumalists and published by the media should be accurate and fair. The basic object ofthe joumalism is to serve the public with news, views, comments, analysis, objective, unbiased, sober, rational. wholesome and decent manner. The media can cause much harm , if baseless, misleading or distorted news about an individual, community, progftrmme or organiz^tion is published. This peculiar nature of the media underscores dre importance of accuracy and fbimess in the material published. The famous author Mr. Thomas W. Kooper in his work , Communication, Ethics and Global Change says that a study of more than 100 media ethics codes around the world revealed that almost all media system are committed to tnrth telling and preventing harm. In regard to the news item, it should be 100plo truthful without allowing imagination to play any mischief. It is th€ principle adopted by the media ofall the countries in the world that the media shall not intrude upon or invade the privacy ofan individual unless outweighed by genuine overriding public interest, not being a prurient or morbid curiosity- This has been codifred by the Press Council of India in the guidelines evolved by it- lt is the accepted principles ofjoumalistic ethics that while r€porting the person's statement, interpolation of words is highly objectionable. It is always olrn to media to make its comment on a person's statement, but it is not proper to record the statement in secret ,: i , \./,. -. t49 or add something which may convey any different meening or subtract from it. It is an accepted principle ofjoumalistic ethics that joumalist should not tape record anyone's conversation without his knowledge or consent except where the recording is necessaq/ to protect the joumalist in any legal action or for other compelling reasons. With the advent of television, sting olrration is being carried out by the reporters of Television channels. But in some cases, the Joumalists indulge in sting operations just to create sensational ner rs. It is also an established principle of joumalism conduct that no obscene or wlgar joumal or offensive matter in any forum should be published. Though the expressions obscenity or vulgarity are not capable of precise definition, these aspects are to be judged with reference to the facts and circumstances of the particular case depending upon the totality of the expression that created in the minds ofthe readers/viewers. The act of Mangalam Television Channel and its officials is clearly unethical. This Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to see that they have conspired with malicious and criminal intention to malign and defame CWIT to get a high rating to their channel in the opening day itself and for that matler they have forged and manipulated electronic docurnents and aired false and inaccurate materials- Their acts are offences attracting various penal provisions also. {'t iJ$ 150 I1.2 The argument for CWI R- Ajithkumrr The Counsel for CW 1 R. Ajithkumar, C.E.O of Mangalam Television Channel filed notes ofargument as followsi There is a preliminary fact to be fomd by this Hon'ble Commission. This is because the Commission is concemed with the deciding of the collateral fact disputes. The purpose of fact finding by this Hon'ble Commission is to veri$ collateral facts. Hence the crucial question to be addressed by this Hon'ble Commission is as to who must prove a collateral fact and what stand of proof. Collateral facts can be divided into preliminary facts and underlying facts. Since these concepts are not well known it can be explained as follows; [R. Pattendon, "Proof nrles of pre-verdict judicial fact finding" vol. 125 law quarterly review 79 (2009I. A prcliminary fact refers to a fact that i) must be proved whenever the Judge applies a rule often concemed with admissibility ofevidence or ii) detemrines whether a discretion arises Discretion refers to any judicial decision that is to the comiderable exrent left to the personal evaluation ofparticular circumstances. All discretions have preconditions but not all have preliminary facts that is factual preconditions embedded in them. The Commission proceedings being a non adversarial one, a dispute about any of ;'i ' -.] ,., ,,"-:U],,; i-:: /.6'-,' " ,:r' l5l preliminary facts is not inter parties as the Comrnission does not contemplate any parties or the resolution ofany lis. An underlying fact is an empirical fact that the Judge must decide because it is reasonably relevant to the exercise of discretion that has arisen. Legislation and case law structure ajudge's discretion by spelling out in general terms facts and other matters to which the judge is to have regard. A fact may be simultaneously preliminary and underlying. When preliminary and underlying facts are not ageed and cannot be assumed the judge decides them- All the parties including those examined can adduce evidence. Once the evidence has been received and argument taken place, the judge assess its cogency and reliability, makes relevant inferences. As to whose voice clipping was aired by Mangalam Channel on 26.03.2017 is a factual precondition in the finding to be entered by this Hon'ble Commission. All the other facts to b€ found are incidental to the finding on the fact ofwhose voice was aired by the Mangalam Channel. The Govemment of Kerala by notification No. 29780/SSA2/2017lFIorne dated 31.03.2017 have appointed this Hon'ble Commission mder section 3 of the Comrnissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, namely the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of State Shd A.K. Saseendran by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2O17 and connected matters with terms ofreference I to 4. The first ofwhich reads as follows: rl, 't-1'fu 152 'to inquire into the veracity ofthe voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State telecast by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2O17?" Item Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the cinrmstances that lead to the recorded conversation in the voice clipping and its editing, tampering and airing \ and the conspiracy ifany in doing the above. It is submitted that the telecast voice clipping is a digital produce which is in the custody ofthe police. One ofthe copies ofthe aired version which was seized by the police and saved in sepamtely in the server at the Mangalarn Channel, Trivandrum has been obtained by the Hon'ble Commission from the Mangalam Television Channel. When the voice in the clipping which is available with the Hon'ble Commission is disputed by Shri A.K. Saseendran, it has to be necessarily got examined by a voice identification expert and all questions relating to the author of the voice can be put to him. As to the question whether and who is the expert, there are Cental Institutes in Mysore and Hyderabad. Hence the veracity and authorship of the voice that was aired by the Mangalarn Television Charurel on 26-03.2017 can only be found out from sending the voice clipping with the Hon'ble Commission for analvsis. When Shri A.K. Saseendran was examined before the Hon'ble Commission, question was put to him as to whether he was willing to send his voice clipphg aired by Mangalam Charmel for voice identification analysis, he has replied that since there was no such petition pending he would consider such an option as and when a petition to that effect comes up before the Commission. Thus he has not raised . -. I trt j .:' .., I'tt .. -., -4 j"- , '.' l)J any defenc€ under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of tndia. Thus the witness having not taken such a contention, he cannot be given the liberty to dodge the responsibility of the discharging onus cast on him to establish that the voice which was similar to his and aired by Mangalam Television Channel is not his. More over there is no criminal case pending against Shri A.K. Saseendran as on date as the cognizance in C.M.P. No. 237 of 2017 has not been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate till date even though the svrom statement has been recorded long back. Shri Bijumon, Dy. S.p., Hi-Tech Cell who is investigating Crime No. 5l and 52 has vouched for the fact there has been 35 calls behveen tlle phone numbers used by Shri A.K. Saseendran and Nazila Nazimuddin between November 2016 and March 2012. Those calls includes long duration calls. When questioned about these calls being the one recorded by Nazila and t€lecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 he only vaguely denied them by a form of evasion. Thus it is to be found that the calls between A.K. Saseendran and Nazila recorded by her and telecast on 26-03.2017 by Mangalam Television Channel are made as described by Nazila in her complaint before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandmm. The mere denial by CWIT would not suffice. This Hon'ble Commission has the duty of frnding as a fact as to whose sound is contained in the voice clipping aired by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017. Since the voice clipping is a sound track even if the original of the recording is not available the voice in the sound track can very well be identified from the characterizes ofthe voice ofthe speaker. A voice 154 clipping merely because it is edited does not make it a forged one provided the voice contained in it is that of the person alleged to have spoken in the clipping. Hence for this purpose also it is crucial that the author of the voice is identified properly' Without doing that one cannot presume forgery in the voice clipping. lt has to be compared with the voice of the person alleged to be the speaker to rule out the possibility of the voice not belonging to him. Any other interpretation will be moving away from the truth. Another crucial piece of evidence on this aspect is the averments in the complaint of Smt. Nazila Nazimuddin as C.M.P. 237 of 2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum. lt has come out in evidence that Shfi . Saseendran had contacted Nazila from his Mobile Phone No. 9847001879 in her mobile number 7025159952 several times. The contents of that talks were sexually explicit ones. She had recorded the said talks with the former Minister. Such talks that she had recorded in a Mobile phone was handed over to th€ Mangalam Television Channel authorities. Thus it is prima facie proved that the telecasted voice on 26.03.2017 was that of the former Minister A.K- Sas€endran- The investigating officer of Crime 51l20l7 atd 5212017 of Crime Branch Police Station has deposed that from the statements of witness and on questioning the accused it is revealed that the telecasted voice recording was that of former Minister A.K.Saseendran- According to him the authorship of aired voice can be ascertained only by scientific analysis not voice identification- l{e has also stated that the CD containing voice clipping was seized and sent to forensic science laboratory for analysis. He had stated that even in the news telecast the voice was claimed to be 155 that of AK. Saseendran. According to him the subject matter of investigation is confined to the telecast alone and does not include whether any limitation ofthe voice was made for fabrication- He has also stated that from the investigation it is revealed that Nazila Nazimuddin had engaged in telephonic conversation with AK. Saseendran. He has specifically answered that the voice sarnple has not been sent for analysis nor has voice comparison test employed in the case of AK. Saseendran. He has further stated that Nazila Nazimuddin alleged co.conspiration has not been questioned. He came out abori the correction given by the l$ accused Ajith Kumar and the same has been collected as part of the investigation. Shri. Bijumon 8.S., Dy.S.P., Kerala police Hi-Tech Cell is member of the special investigation team headed by Dy.S.p. Shri- Shanavas has taken the voice telecast into custody in a pen drive. He has also collected the call detail records from the service providers, a soft copy of which has been forwarded to the Commission. He has stated that on 04.0g.2017 the investigating officer has questioned Nazila Nazimuddin. He has stated tlnt he has collected the call detail record of tle phone number 7025159952 in the use of Nazila Nazimuddin as well as the call details of mobile phone mrmber 984700 I 879 in the use of Shri A.K. Saseendran from the service providers. It is revealed that from the number in the use of Nazila 19 calls have originated and from the number of A.K. Saseendran 16 calls have been generated. Thus all together there have been a total number of 35 calls between the numbers of A.K-Saseendran and Nazila Nazimuddin from November to March 2017 - He has staled that the call duration of the In call is 576 second and the 2d call is 176 seconds. He cannot state whether the 16 calls that orieinated from the .,"\, f ;\" 156 mobile number ofA.K. Saseendran were retum calls made by him or not. He has not ventured to ascertain from A.K.Saseendran about the authorship of the voice containing the voice clipping. He has categorically stated that the investigation regarding the existence of telephonic conversation b€tween A.K- Saseendran and Accused No. l0 can only be ascertained from by questioning A.K. Saseendran. No explanation is offered for delaying questioning of A.K.Saseendran. He has also not asc€rtained from the former Minister the circumstances under which the 16 calls were generated from his mobile to the phone of Nazila. Regarding the questions relating to the voice clipping A.K. Saseendran has denied the same. But this evidence on this aspect has to be arrrlyzed along with the other evidences in the light of other circumstances relating to the same. One of the main circumstanc€s is that he has not denied the voice that was t€lecast. For the first time before the Commission he takes a stand that the voice was not his. For what was tle content ofthe conversation of the talk between Nazila and himself he has no clear explanation except a vague statement that she being a media person might have put some questions which he has answered- But evidently that answer do not account or explain the long duration of 35 calls between the two which cannot be casually explained away. The resignation entered upon very telecast of the news would show that the voice telecast was of A-K. Saseendran itself- Regarding the question of indulging in sexually explicit talk with Nazila the Minister has refused to answer taking the shelter a complaint of which cognizance is not taken t57 sexually explicit talk Regaiding the question whether he was prepared for voice identification he vaguely answered that only ifthe police direct him he shall consider it. Thus the entire evidence of A.K. Saseendmn is lblse and it is clear that the content of the telecast is nothing but the content of the telephonic conversalion he had with Nazila Nazimuddin during November 2016 to March 2017 in their resDective mobile numbers. Next is the question of determining the preliminary facts in order to fasten liability of CWI Ajith Kumar. He has stated that 26.03.2017 the reason for telecasting only the voice clipping ofthe former Minister alone wilhout telecasting the conversation as a whole was that the way in which the recording was fumished to the channel was telecast. Saseendran's conversation was with a sub editor trainee of the Mangalam Television Channel. She along witr R. Jayachandran, Chief reporter, Mangalam daily had approached him witll a complaint that the Minisrcr had indulged in sexually explicit talks with her. She had also stated that a recording was done of the talk of the Minister. He directed them to discuss with the editorial committee and decide on the future course of action to be adopted. He came to know later that it was the t€l€phonic talk of A.K-Saseendran with the gid that was telecasL Regarding the evidence given by CWl4 Al-Neema Ashraf it has come out in evidence that in the resignation letter she had e.mailed the reason stated is not the telecasling ofthe news item on 26.03.2017 but ralher the action of CW I not supporting her by revealing the identift of Nazila Nazeemudhin in his apolory. According to her she had been irked by the non inclusion ofthe disclosure of identity when CW I had proceeded to '.: r ".-\ ',L', "',,-,ir, /li,.i:'., r',', ilElKoc"r ' 1') i,. ' \AV - :$-,-, 158 tender an apology publically. According to her this action of CWI had caused a lot of shame to her as there developed talk amongst joumalist circles that the reporter trainee in question was a single muslin lady from Kollam or Thiruvananthapuram. Since she fitted the description she had demanded that CW I make a public statement regarding a true id€ntity of the victim. CW I ventured only to say that the talk was with a women reporter of the channel. According to Al-Neema Ashraf such an action from the part ofCW I put her into a lot ofstress and public ridicule. This was the real reason it was stated in the resignation email. Thus it is clear that she had an axe to grind against CW I and hence her evidence regarding the conspiracy of CW l and Jayachandran is only to be discredited. According to CWI it was following the Supreme Court judgment of not revealing tle name of the victim that the telecast datd, 26.03.2017 the person to whom the minister was talking is described as a helpless woman. Several of the witness examined before the Commission including CW 14 opined that entire conversation ought to have been telecast. But the fact remains that they had not raised any objections with the Channel authorities at the relevant time. Their reason for resignatron also being for differcnt reasons. The evidences of persons who resigned from Mangalam can be taken only with pinch of salt as they have an axe to grind with their former employer. Thus their interested testimony cannot be the sole material for entering finding upon the liability ofC Wl and Jayachandran. Even the organization of women network in media consist of fomrer employees of the channel. According to CW I the telecast of 26.03.2017 was not the first news telecast of the channel and they had no intention to irncease rhe rating by telecasting the talU ortl ... I it._*, it^ 159 Minister. Regarding the two time resignation of A-M. yazir, forrner reporter the first time was for misusing tlre laptop of office. According to CW I the telecasted news is only reminder for the purity of character expected of a public servant. Regarding the question as to who recorded the conversation CWl says he cannot name the person due to the existence of the parallel criminal investigation. The same reason and the protection against self incrimination provided by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India as to his inability to produce the original of the voice record. The only reason for telecasting the news was that the complaint of Nazila was true. The evidence of Rishi K. Manoj and Manjith Varma former staff of Mangalam Television Channel are clearly interested testimony. They have resigred from the company much later to the telecast and their only intention is to defame the channel. Thus their evidence is liable to be rejected as uncreditworthy. It is to be noted that they were also editors of the channel and was on editorial work and hence they cannot be permitted to tum around and put responsibility on CW I alone. Thus Arerc is no credible evidence against CW 1 for having telecast the talk of former Minister A.K. Saseendran and for entering into a conspiracy for the same. There is also no evidence that CWI had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Nazila Nazimuddin and Jayachandran to defame and cause the resignation of Shri A.K. Saseendran, there is no credible evidence. Mere saying that reporter should aspire for resignation of some of the Minister or in order to prove conspiracy there should be a specific intention against A.K. Saseendran. What was the intention of CW I or i"l ll,t 1 --(ti' : 160 CW 3 or Nazila. There is no legally sustainable material to enter into a finding. More over any frnding by the commission relating to criminal liability of CW I or CW 3 will adversely affect them in the ongoing criminal investigation. One more important circumstance to be noted is the resignation of A.K. Saseendran immediately on the telecast of his voice. He has not denied that the voice telecast was his in the press meet held immediately after the telecast by 2.3O p.m. This action for resignation would evidence that it was fully convinced that the voice telecast was his alone Shri A.K. Saseen&an had resigred from the post of Minister without waiting for any sort of enquiry. 113 The ergument for CW2 Sajan Varghese, CW 4 M.p. Santhosh and CW 6 M. Lakshmi Mohan The Counsel for CW l, CW 4, CW 6 filed notes of argument. Their contention is as follows:- .the Any inquiry in term No.1, on veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of State telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2Q17' can be done only by doing voice identification of the voice in the clipping and CW 17. Though, p€tition was filed by CW 2, CW 4 and CW 6 praying to conduct voice identification of the clipping and CW 17, the same was rejected on unsustainable grounds. The Hon'ble Commission had gone seriously wrong in accepting the contentions ofCW l7 that the originat copy of the recordings is needed for the voice identification. The commission reached to this finding without ascertaining the possibility of conducting voice identification with the voice clipping in the possession ofthe commission. ,..t I ll \,J1 t" 16t The assistance of experts was not taken by the commission before rejecting the application. All India Institute of speech and hearing 'Manasaganjyothi', Mysore Pin - 570 006, IGmataka is doing voice identificatior tests. As it is shown in the website ofthe above Institut€, it is not insisting for original voice clipping for doing voice identification. Therefore, it is rcspectfully submitted that the voice identification is possible with the available voice clipping. It is pertinent to note that CW '17 did not disagree when the Cormsel for CW 2, CW 6 and CW 8 suggested for conducting voice identification of his sormd with the voice in the clippings. Since CW 17 did not object voice identification test, it is a great omission from the part of the comrnission in not conducting the voice identification test. The public importance ofthis enquiry is to find that whether the sound in the clipping is rhat ofCW 17. It is respectfirlly submitted that the honourable commission failed to conduct proper enquiry to the term No. I ofthe reference. Even in the absence of voice identification test, the veracity of the clipping can be proved ftom the conducts of CW 17. CW 22, the investigating officer deposed that he had collected the call details between the phones of CWl T and the concemed woman journalist. It is stated by CW 22 that there are 19 calls from the phone of the woman joumalist to the phone ofCW l7 and 16 calls from the phone ofCW 17 to the phone of the woman joumalist during the relevant time. It is admitled by CW 17 during the cross-examination by the Counsel for CW 2, CW4 and CW 6 that he had called the woman joumalist at several times. But CW l7 could not state any specific reasons for repeatedly calling the woman joumalist. It is pertinent to note that CW 17 did not deny that the voice in the clipping is not of him until he appeared before 162 this commission. CWI? did not lodge any complaint against the voice clipping aired as ofhis voice, in spite ofhis resignation on account ofthe disputed news. All these circumstances point that the voice in the clipping is that of CW17. The terms No.2 of the reference is that to inquire into the circumstances that lead to the above conversation; to inquire into as to whether the recorded voice clipping was edited or tampered with mala fide intentions and as to who have acted behind that- CW 22, the investigating officer deposed that he had collected the call details between the phones ofCW 17 and the concemed woman joumalist. lt is stated by CW 22 that there are 19 calls from the phone of the woman joumalist tn the phone of CW 17 and 16 calls from the phone of CW 17 to the phone of the woman joumalist during tie relevant time. lt is admitted by CW l Tduring the cross-examination by the Counsel for CW 2, CW 4 and CW 6 that he had called the woman joumalist several times. But CW 17 could not state any specific reasons for repeatedly calling the woman joumalist. The case of the woman joumalist in her complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum is that CW 17 used to deliver sexually explicit dialogue over phones, after the incidents on the 08.11.2016, described it in paragraphs number 3&4 of her complaint. Since the behaviour ofCW 17 became intolerable, she had recorded the '17 sexually, explicit dialogues of CW to make proof in her legal proceedings against CW 17- Hence this makes an act of sting operation from the part of the woman joumalist to make proof for legal proceedings. 'Ihe Mangalam Television Channel aired the news clipping as the report of the legal proceedings being initiated by the woman-'f ltL, Kocbi-30 ,.-J+! '16] joumalist. As it is deposed by the employee's of the Mangalam Television Channel before this commission, the charmel aired the voice clipping as given by the wofiran joumalist. As stated by the woman joumalist in her complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrun! she had recorded the voice of CW17 during the telephonic conversation. She had recorded the relevant words alone of CW17. That is why, it contains the voice of CWIT alone. There is no editing or tampering in the voice clipping. CWIT categorically denied during the cross-examination by the Counsel for CW2, CW4 and CW6 that there was no bad behaviour from the part of the concemed woman joumaliS. Thercfore it is clear that CW 17 was not corresponding to any sexually explicit conversations from the part of the concemed woman ioumalist. The terms No.3 of the reference is that to inquire into as to whether the act of airing the voice clipping is illegal and it involves illegal activities or conspiracies and if so, the legal action to be taken in this regard. The case of the woman joumalist in her complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum is that CW 17 used to deliver sexually explicit dialogue over phones. Since the behaviour of CW 17 became intolerable, she had recorded the sexually explicit dialogues ofCW 17 to make proof in her proposed legal proceedings against CW 17- Hence this makes an act of sting operation from the part of the woman joumalist to make proof for legal proceedings. The 'Mangalam' TV Channel aired the news clipping also report on the legal proceedings being initiated by the woman joumalist. There are no legal violations in airing legal proceedings. The acts of legal proceedings and the reporting of them n ' ...:-'**,:-;--\ (rt''l1',lt' 'ti\Koir'i'J0:,',i ..i--1" ': <' I \(.,);- lu through the channel are not amounting to any legal violations or conspiracy. It is A.M. Yazir (CW 15) raised allegations of conspiracy from the part of politicians belongs to the political party of CW 17 are behind the airing ofthe disputed news item. CW 17 categorically denied during the cross-examination by the Counsel for CW 2, CW 4 and CW 6 that therc is no c.onspiracy as alleged by A.M. Yazir (CW l5). The terms no. 4 of the reference is that to inquire into the other matters connected with this case as the Commission observes. CW 17 categoiically denied during the cross-examination by the Counsel for CW 2, CW 4 and CW 6 that there is no code of conduct to the minislers and other representatives of people. One of the major tlreat against the Democratic system in our country is the moral turpitude of the elected representatives. Our state was fiozen for long periods pursuant to the solar scam. The judicial commission appointed for conducting enquiry on solar scarn submitted reports pointing to the abuse of powers by the rulers for the consideration of sex and woman. Hence it is necessary to recomrnend for framing code of conduct to the ministers and other reprcsertatives of people from the part of govemment. Notwithstanding anlthing stated above, it is respectfully submitted that CW 2, CW 4 and CW 6 are not responsible for the selection of news and programmes in the 'Mangalam' TV channel. I 1.4 Argument for CW 3 R Jayachandran There is no evidence that CW I had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Nazila Nazimuddin and Jayachandran to defame and cause thei'1, U\-t 165 resignation of Shri . AK- Saseendran. Mere saying that reporter should aspire for some shocking news which may cause resignation of some of the Minister or other higher ups will not suffice. In order to prove conspiracy there should be a specific intention against A-K. Saseendran. What was the intention of CW I or CW 3 or Nazila. There is no legally sustainable rnaterial to enter into a finding. More over, any finding by the commission relating to criminal liability of CW I or CW 3 will advenelv affect them in the ongoing criminal investigation. The investigation into the case has not revealed any maGrial nor has any recovery effected against CW 3 so as to connect hirn with the alleged conspiracy. Merely because Nazila Nazimuddin has posted something on the intemet that too after the police questioned her would not amormt to any proof of conspiracy against CW 3. More over any adverse finding by this Hon'ble Commission would seriously prejudice CW 3 in the ongoing investigation of Crime No. 5l and 52 of 2017 under investigation by Crime Branch. ll.5 Contentions in lhe cross-exemination of Mangelam Television Channel Journalists The contention of CW I R. Ajirhkumar, CW 2 Sajan Varghese, CW 3 R. Jayachandran, CW 4 M.p. Santhosh, CW 7 Firoz Sali Mohammed and CW 8 S.V. Pradeep who have justified the airing of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State aired on 26.03.2017 through the Mangalam Television Charmel, as has come out fiom the cross-examination of CW 17 A.K. Saseendran and other witnesses can be summarised as follows:- 166 According to CW 1 R Ajithkurnar, it is not correct thrt the Mangalan Daily and Mangalam Television Charurel has the same establishment and same C.E.O. He is the C.E.O of Mangalam Daily, but not that of Mangalam Television Channel. He is the Managing Director of Mangalam Television Channel. He is one of the Directors of GN Inform Media (P) Limited. But he is not a shareholder of the company. It is admitted that the statement filed before the Commission on 28.06.2017 was prepared by him. But, it is not corect that he is the C.E.O. of the Mangalam Television Channel as stated in the statement filed by him. Basic qualifications for joumalists in Mangalam Television Channel is Degree and Diploma in Joumalism. But certain joumalists are given exemption from the basic qualification on the basis of their exceptional performance in interview. It is not correct that special consideration was given to CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin. But he cannot remember that she did not possess the above basic qualification. News are not created (Reply to the suggestion that it is not media ethics to create and public news). Whether print or electmnic media the contents ofnews should be true. He would deny the suggestion that it is not ethical to give fabricated and imaginary news; it is relative. lmpact of a n€ws need not be the consequence of the news broadcast or the action taken on the news that was factually correct. His answer is that it is relative, to the question that it is paid news and illegal to give false news to create an impacr. rrVhat does he mean by 'it is relative'? The relationship among news, its circumstances and impact. Does he mean that there is no place for truth in the publication and broadcast of news? Truth is relative- r ,1 t, Lry 167 It is correct that accuracy is the heart of lhe news. What is meant by accuracy is to inform the viewers the true facts? No, being truthful is relative. They have not become a member of the NBA. NBA has published a Code of Ethics. It includes rhe guidelines to be followed by the electronic media and the joumalists working there. Official broadcast of Mangalam Television commenced on 26 .03.2017 . It is not correct to say that he was there in the offrce of the channel conholling the rctivities on the date of inauguration. They had staned telecast a few days ago. He denied the suggestion that it was test telecast and curtain raisers. A group of journalists who constituted the editorial board of the channel were controlling the affairs of the day. There is no objection in producing the name and address of the members of the editorial board who were on duty on that day- They have no specific assigned duties. All the members are liable to do all the duties. He is not having the ultimare contrcl of the editorial board. He is not a member of the editorial board. The numbers of the editorial board are not working under him. All the employees of the Mangalam Television Channel are not working under him. He cannot say the names of the members of the editorial board who were on duty on 26.03.2017. Those who are working in the Mangalam Television Channel as News Editors and News Co- ordinating editors are members ofthe editorial board. At the time of the broadcast of the voic€ clipping he was not present at the console of dre news room- His enquiry revealed that there was no incident ofdisconnecting the speaker to the news room during the telecast of the voice clipping when it was informed that the women guests were not comfortable and $rey were protesting against the telecast ofthe voice e4,/11 , 168 clipping. He did not enquire wift CW 13 Sandhya as she is a left intellectual. He did not see the e-mail communication of CW 14 Al- Neema resigning from the channel. It was not addressed to him. Resignation letter is handed by the H.R Departrnent. There was no necessity to inform CW 14 Al-Neema in writing that her performance was poor. She was informed ofher poor performance by the concemed officers of the Channel. It is not correct to say that her performance was rated poor as she declined to become a member of the special investigation team. No such team was fomred. lt is wrong to suggest that he said that the perfornance ofCW 14 Al-Neema was poor as she disclosed true facts before the Commission. He understood fiom his later enquiry that what is stated in the news tel€cast on 26.03-2017 is correct. lt was only to hide the identity of the victim that it was reported that the Minister was approached by a pcor widowed housewife- The fact stated in the news was conect, it was the talk of the former Minister A.K. Saseendran. If a talk is telecast witlout revealing lhe names of the participants, they can be identified only by those who are very familiar with the voice. He would not agree to the suggestion that it is against joumalistic ethics to telecast a talk of one person after editing out the talk ofthe other person. He did not know as to who r€corded the voice of the voice clipping that was telecast. lt is not correct to say that he is not revealing the name of the person who recorded,the talk due to the criminal investigation that is going on. It is not correct that he tendered the apology throug! the Mangalam Television Channel on 30-03.2017 as tjrcre was objection from a wide sp€ctrum of people from the public including the cultured leaders, elder joumalists and women joumalists in the wake of the controyercial news '{ d\ 169 on 26.03.2017. It is denied that women joumalists held demonsrations in front ofthe oflices ofthe Mangalam Television Charmel on 30.03.201 7 and 01.04.2017. He denied the specific suggestion lhal women joumalists held a demonstration on 01.04.2017 in front of the office of the Mangalam Television Channel at Vyttila, Kochi. He tendered the apologr as the presentation of the news was not propet. When he was questioned after playing the video of his apology telecast on 30.03 .20 I 7, he stated that reference to sting operation and decision of the editorial board consisting of 8 members is not correct He was only reading a written apolosr and the referenc€ to sting operation was a mistake. The note of apology was prepared by the available editorial board. He did not read the note of apolory with application of mind as it was telecast live. As he was rmdergoing mental stress he did not appear in television so far. Therefore, he had no occasion to correct the apology. He would say that it is absolutely wrong to state that the news was created through a sting operation as previously decided and it was only to hide the identity ofthe reporters, it was not revealed earlier. He repeated that it is a mistake to have stated so in the apolory. He is correcting it now before the Commission. He did not see the live reporting of Renjith, Chief Reporter of Mangalam Daily, Trivandrum Bur€au. He would say that it has not come to his notice that Renjith stated in his live feporting that the Mangalam Television Channel is in possession of the entire conversation of the voice clipping and its documents. The video of the news was played before CW I and he was specifically asked that Renjith reported so as the Channel was in possession of the unedited version of the recorded r"lk, the reply ofCW I is that there was no editing ofthe Ko .- -. '30 170 recording of the talk glven by 'that g,id' and the document referred to Renjith must be the c.omplaint ofthe 'girl'. Live reporting was not given with his permission as Managing Director and he is not responsible for the contents of the live report. He did not talk to Renjith about his reporting. What is stated by him before tle Commission with regard to what was meant by Renjith is only his assumption. He would say that the staGment in the apolory that they were waiting to reveal every thing that is stated in the apology during the judicial inquiry is also a mistake occurred when the note of apolosf was prepared. When it is suggested that if what he stated before the Commission is the true version he was cheating the public through a false apolory, he would say that what he stated before the Commission is the true version. He admitted that if the conversation was recorded through sting otrrration the charutel should be in possession ofthe entire unedited conversation. CW I denied the suggestion that he lodged a false complaint with the Museum Police Station in order to avoid the pmduction of the unedited version of the recorded conversation before the police after getting an adjour nent of his bail application before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. When it is suggested that the voice clipping yould be proved false if the unedited original version of the conversation is produced before the police or the Commission and that the same wart destroyed to cause the disalpearance ofthe evidence, and also that the Minister has no connection with the same, CW 1 denied the suggestion and stated that it is the voice of the Minister. He admitted that there are mimicry artists who could imitate voice. But, he denied the suggestion that the original voice and imitated voice could not be identified. He denied the suggestion that a voice clipping was created fraudulently and it was Ua -( t7l telecast alleging that it was the voice of the Minister A.IC Saseendran- He denied the suggestion that fhe voice clipping was telecast in violation of the Code of Practice of the NBA. He stated that the general public would perceive it as their social commitment that they brought out the lascivious conversation of the Minister who outraged the modesty of a woman. He also added that if it was a sting operation, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magishate, Trivandrum would not have taken on file the case against the former Minister on the basis ofthe statement ofthe .eirl' and witnesses. The contention on behalf of CW 2 Sajan Varghese, CW 3 R. Jayachandran, CW 4 M.P. Santhosh, CW 7 Firoz Sali Mohammed and CW 8 S.V. Pradeep in cross-examination is also to the same effect with regard to the position of CW 1 as C.E.O. of Mangalam Television Channel, telecast of voice clipping, the apology of CW l telecast on 30.03.2017, and regarding the Code of Ethics relating to sting operation and broadcast of accurate news. 11.6 Stetement lil€d on bchalf of State According to the leamed Govemment Pleader, from tlre close analysis of terms ofreference it is obvious that it has two limbs, though it comprised or compiled on five distinct numerical numbers having different objects. The first limb ofthe said terms of reference viz. No. (i) to (iv) are directly related to broadcasting in question. Hence the finding thereupon has to be reached by the Hon'ble Commission is exclusively related to or depended upoq the eviderrce elucidated either oral or documentaq/ and Koc' '- 30 'l7z all other means of allied material evidence gathered and relied on by the Hon'ble Commission in accordance with law as a statutory recognized facs finding today- As far as the second limb is concemed viz. No.(v) of the terms of references, is exclusively under the domain of Hon'ble Commission to make an opinion and propose suggestions based upon evidence in all respect accumulated under the fint limbs ofterms of references viz. (i) to (iv) thereon. Before scarming the evidence on record it is to be bom in mind that the entire issue is having certain undisputed or admitted factual matrix. Those are enumerated hereunder:- D the genesis of the issue is on the basis of a male voice clipping aired on 26.03-2017 by Mangalam Television Channel. iD that voice clipping is a partial or unilateral conversation involving sexual connotations. iii) the voic€ clipping is an edited version ofthe original. iu) the original version of voice clipping is having both male and female voices and the same is not available in the custody o{ Mangalam Television Channel. v) investigating oflicer has also recovered the device or allied matFrial objects contained edited voice clipping in question. vi) the alleged theft oflaptop and pen drive contained unedited version cif voice clipping resulted in Cr. No. 549/17 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram wherein CWI is the de facto 173 complaiftrnt, was refened by tie investigating officer as false case, ultimately it reached its finality by e{Iluence of time. vii) documentary evidence was also seized from the offic€ of Mangalam Television Channel by the investigating officer regarding the purchase of mobile phone. viii) CW l0 is the counierpart (female) who led the available unilateral conversation aired involving sexual connotations. ix) the establishment athibuted to the counterpart (female) in the voice clipping in question that the CW17 'attempted to seduce a helpless widow who had approached him to ventilat her grievance' is a cooked up, 'false news'. x) CW 2 & CW l0 cleverly evaded to appear before the Hon'ble Commission in response to the repeated summons. xi) the observation in order in B.A. No- 2378 of 2Ol7, Judgment in WP@ No. 21A95 of 2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the order d^ed 25.08.2017 af Hon'ble Commission in disallowing the prayer made are binding to the parties of this proce€ding. Since those are also rernained as unchallenged by the expiry of statutory period to challenge. xii) the contents of the audio clipping which was telecast€d are something which disturb or affect the tempo of the life of the community or the tranquillity of th€ society, it is a matter conceming public order. ln the backdrops of above factual matrix the widence elucidated can be appreciated. t74 CWl3 is an independent witness who was present in the l\{angalam Television Channel as a guesy'invitee in conn€ction with a panel discussion. When CWl3 and two other women viz. CWI I & CWl2 participated in the panel discussion anchored by CW6, the anchor disclosed that there was a breaking news and the same will break soon after l2 O'clock. After airing the voic.e clipping the anchor CW6 asked CWl3 to recognize the voice and in reply CW13 said she is not able to recognize the voic€ that she had heard. However it is not appropriat€ to make an opinion by the State to what extend the evidence of CWl3 is admissible and not admissible as far as CWI & CW2 and CWIT are concerned rcspectively. Any how the evidence of CWl3 in all material aspect is in consonance witi the exact position or situation staged at the material date and time when the voice clipping in question was aired under lhe title 'breaking news' as evident fiom the contents of compact disk handed over to the Hon'ble Commission. The same is generated from archives of the channel and submined to Hon'ble Commission. visited there on 15.09.2017 as part of inquiry. Hence the evidence of CWl3 is worthwhile, admissible and free liom all extraneous consideration. So it can b€ taken into account by the Hon'ble Commissign as a reliable evidence for determining the issue in hand in part with dre terms ofreference. t75 The next wihess is CW14 who rcsigned from Mangalam Television Channel as Sub-Editor-Cum-News Reader after two days from broadcasting ofnews clipping in question. From the close reading of the deposition of CWl4 four material aspecrs can be gathered and those are admitted by other witness who were examined subsequently on different dates So those material particulars corroborated with other witnesses are reproduced hereunder: i. an investigation team is forrned with an intention to generate news in any manner. ii. due to the telecast ofthe edited version ofvoice clipping in question in Mangalam Television Charmel headed by CWI & CW2 had flouted media ethics and the same created sheer shame to the joumalist in the wider professional spectrum especially females who are in the profession. iii. joumalists are bound to uphold/respect right of privacy of an individual/citizen. iv. voice clipping is a by-product of flouting of existing norms and code ofpractice prevailed in the sphere ofjoumalism or joumalist and whereby cornmitted oflences attracting penal provisions for which they are answerable. I i k' t76 ln &e light of the above 4 counts the Hon'ble Commission can safely accept the evidence of CW 14 in determining the issue spread over the terms of reference. It is pertinent to notice by this Hon'ble Commission that in the midst of examination of witnesses, CW2, who failed to appear before the Hon'ble Commission in lieu of summons to appear on 19.06.2017 had filed Writ Petition O No. 21095/ of 2017 on 23.06.2017 and made a specific prayer to quash Government Notification, Notice issued by Hon'ble Commission, and surnmons viz. Exhibit P6, P7 and P8 respectively referred to in Writ Petition. In the above Writ Petition there are three respondents viz. Union of India represenled by Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, State of Kerala represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Deparunent and the Commission of inquiry reprcsented by its Secretary. Hon'ble High Court by judgment dated 08.08.2017 dismissed the Writ Petition. The observation made in the judgment in paragraph 6 in reproduced hereunder for the sake ofconsonance oftheir Hon'ble Commission...... It is beyond dispute that news channels are viewed by the society without any inhibitions and reservations. As noted above, there is no dispute tg the fact that the conversation which was telecast in the news channel is a conversation involving sexual connotations and the substance ofthe conversation was such that the Minister had to rcsign on account of the telecast of the said audio clip. The liberty which is enjoyed by the media is part ofthe freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Koal": "'' l t77 Article l9(l{a) of the Consitution. There cannot be any doubt that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed lmder the said Article is not an absolute right and the same does not include the dght to tell the people what they do not want to hear. If the contents of the audio clip which was telecast are something which would disturb or affect the tempo of the life of the community or the tranquillity of the society, it is a matrer conceming public order. Such a view has been taken b y the Apex Court in Kenu Biswes v. Stete of W.B. a(l99r2\ 3 SCC 8311. paragraph 7 of the saidjudgment read thus : ' 7- The question whether a man has only comrnitted a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order, according to the dictum laid down in the above case, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. Public order is what the French call ..order publique" and is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. The test to be adopted in determining whether an act affects law and order or public order, as laid down in the above case. is : Does it lead to dishlrbance ofthe current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it aff€ct merely an individual leaving the tranquillity ofthe society undisturbed ? " Identical is rie view taken by the Apex Court in Subnrmanisn v. State of T.N. [(2012) 4 SCC 6991 also. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment read thus: \-kl"l{ /,, -I 178 15. The next contention on behalf of the detenu, assailing the detention or on the plea that there is a differenc€ between "law and order" and "public order" cannot also be sustained since this Court in a series of decisions recognizd that public order is the even tempo of life of the comrnunity taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality [Vide Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M,L. Wadhawan'. SCC Paras ll & 14. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihac Union of India v. Aravind Shergill, SCC para 4 & 6; Smil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, SCC para 28 (Constitution Bench), Commr. of Police v. C. Anita SCC paras 5 ,7 & l3l" In any angle, it is obvious that the t€lecast of voice clipping in question by the Mangalam Television Channel had override the cardinal principles as observed above for their'hlterior motive" which is richly available and meticulously explained by witnesses in this proceeding. More over on behalfof the 1e respondent in the Writ Petition, a statement is filed and the same is also part of records ofthe writ petition. The said statement discloses certain serious issues on the part of CWI & CW2 and the same will be discussed la&r when the appropriate context arises. On 24.06.2017 CWIT was examined. Thereafter on 24.0E.2017 CW|T was again examined. From the evidence of CW17 it can be gathered that the witness emphatically denied the authorship of voice contained in voice clipping broadcasted./aired by Mangalam Television Channel on 2 6 .03 .2017 - t79 On the other hand CW I 7 has not denied that he himself as a Minister of the State contacted many press ;rrsonals on different dates and time and vice versa including CW 10. CW 17 fuiher deposed that such qrpe of practice is quite ndural, usual and common while holding the office of Minister of State. More over CW 17 is also awaiting the net result of investigation of two crirnes regisered in lieu of the incident in question and also the ultimate finding of the Hon'ble Comrnission within the parameters of its terms of rcference. CW 1 7 also deposed that the right to challenge the case instituted against him by CW l0 beforc the Chief Judicial Magishate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is resewed and the same would be launched when appropriate time and context arises. In sum, the plain reading of deposition of CW 17 rweals that there is nothing unusual or improbable in the sense of any ordinary man of prudence. Hence the probative value of the same can be appreciated by this Hon'ble Commission in the lime light of other evidences on record. CW 1 was examined on two occasions. The perusal of depositions of CW I i.e. on 28.06.2017 & 11.07.2017 unambiguously spells that the witn€ss is untrustworthy and his hands are not clean. In each and every material aspects CWI had acted hot and cold or approbate and reprobate in one and same plane and ultimately exposed his impregnated ignorance, inability and not irmocenc€, outweighing the claim of long experience in the Forth Estate. At this juncture it is also relevant to notic€ the guilty mind of CWI or the Mens Rea. For instance in pursuance of the complaints submitted by three persons both on individual and offrcial capacity respectively humiliated with the broadcasting of voice clipping 180 in question, the Ministry of lnformation & Broadcasting. New Delhi obtained necessary clippings along with reports fiom Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (EMMC) for initiating action againsr the Mangalam Television Channel. After knowing the fact CWI appeared on television and apologized on 30.03.2017, regarding the broadcasting of voice clipping in question. In the light of the said apology the competent authority in the Ministry opined that no further action is required to be taken. This fact is available in the statement submitted by Under Secretary to the Govemrnent of lndi4 Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi, in WP@ No .21095/2017. But before this Hon'ble Commission CWI emphatically denied such an apology on ll-07 -2017 i.e., after the date of closing of further action as averred above, by the Ministry. From the deposition of CWI even the incorporation of Mangalam Telecasting India (p) Limited itselfis under suspicious since no valid and legally acceptable profile of one of the shareholders is not produced before tlIe Hon'ble Commission as per law to convince the Hon,ble Commission regarding the authority or genuineness of company and its shareholders. This fact has to be weighed and appreciated on the basis of the other aspects elucidated in evidence of CWI and other witnesses who were 67-lD -lKochi'30 lt; vx=-d9 l8l Categorically deposed the mala fide intention behind the telecasted voice clipping in question and conduct ofCW 1, CW 2 etc. before and after the incident resulted in two FIIts, wherein CW I is figured as accused No. l(Al ). Above all the Call Data Records (CDR) further reveals the tower location of cell phone No. 7025159952 used to make calls to CW 17. The distance between the said tower location and office of Television Channel is also available to the investigation agency. The longitude and altitude is also available in CDR. After eliminating all other improbabilities the available probable evidence will autornatically locate the exact place or spot from where the calls were made or generated in the above given number. At any rate it is an unshaken factual position that all other evidence gathered by this Hon'ble Commission and collected by the investigation agency would corroborate with each other for pinpointing exact place of conspiracy and subsequent acts resulted in telecasting of voice clipping in question. So CW I cannot g,o scot free the clutches of law but would be dealt with law. Hon'ble Commission may appreciate these aspects in its legal perspective. On 12.07.2017 CW 4 & CW 6 were examined. Both witnesses are still working at Mangalam Television Charmel as Co'ordinating Editor and News Reader respectively. CW4 is 56 in FIRs registered by the police in lieu of the broadcasting of voice clipping in question. Though CW 4 is an interested witness his evidence corroborates with all material particulars available on records of 182 Hon'ble Commission. CW 4 categorically admitted that the voice clipping in question is totally against public morality and indecent too. CW 4 further deposed that CW 10 is the female who is behind the voice clipping. CW 6 was also examined 12.06.2017 and still working in the channel as a News Reader. Though CW 6 still working at Mangalam Television Channel this witness is not an interested witness. CW 6 expressed the actual situation that she had faced on the particular time when she anchored the panel discussion and the voice clipping was broadcast as 'breaking news'. What the witress deposed is also in consonance with the compact disk handed over to the Hon'ble Commission. The evidence of CW6 can be accepted as free fiom extraneous consideration by this Hon'ble Commission. On 13.07 .2017 CW5 & CW9 were examined and both witnesses worked as News Co-ordinating Editor and News Editor respectively and resigned from the post that they had held at Channel subsequent to the broadcasting ofvoice clipping in question- The evidence of CW5 & CW9 can be accepted in toto by this Hon'ble Commission as they fairly disclosed the factual pnsition in all aspeos retating to the telecasting ofvoice clipping in question. There is nothing to discrcdit those witnesses brought out even during cross-examination. /-xi IKochi-3o )s .*.t;9 183 On 14.07.2017 CW 8 was examined. This witness is still holding the post of News Editor-cum-News Reader in the Mangalam Television Channel. CW8 is figured as 3d accused (A3) in the crimes regist€red in lieu of the telecasting of voice clipping in question. Though he is an interested witness he had admitted that the voice clipping in question contained wlgarity. CW 8 further deposed that on 30.03.2017 Chief Ajithkumar (CWl) had made apology and the same was telecast live in the Mangalam Television Channel. CW8 had also admitted before this Hon'ble Commission that intrusion into the privacy ofa percon is the violation of code of practice prescribed by News Broadcasters Association- Passing thmugh the deposition of CW 8 it is enough to provoke the memory of a person who witnessed the examination of CW g. However it is not out of context or inappropriate to pinpoint the disorderly behaviour of CW 8 who flouted the decorum to be expected from a witness who appeared before the Hon'ble Commission in response to summons issued and served. The manner adopted to answer relevant questions put by Hon'ble Commission is also in an immature, abstracl elusive style challenging or treating the entire process and procedure of this Hon'ble Commission as mockery. It is afraid of to presume that CW 8 belongs to a member of Forth Esate. This Hon'ble Commission may extend to make valuable suggestions to .Rogue suspend or withdraw accreditation of such Joumalists,' who are a shame to others in the same snhere. 184 The evidence of CW 8 has to be appreciated in the backdrops of above aspecs by this Hon'ble Commission. On 27.06.2O17 CW 2l was ex amined. CW 2l is Dy'S.P.' CBCID who is the investigating officer in Cr. 5l/CR/OCW l/TVPlW20l7 and 52lCR /OCWTVPIvI/20I7 for the offences punishable under section 120(b) of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act respectively. There are altogether l0 accused and the lOh accused is shown as unknown female. During the course of investigation CW2l submitted a report before the court incorporating Section 34 Indian Penal Code also in the said FIRs- It is also revealed in the progress of investigation and also in the deposition by CW 2l that the unknown female as shown as Al0 in the FIR is Nazeela Nazimuddin i.e. CW l0 in this inquiry. During the course of examination CW 2l had admitted that offence punishable under section 201 of the IPC is also commitGd by Al viz' CWl herein. Nothing elucidated to discredit the evidence ofCW 2l and hence the deposition of CW 2l can be accepted in toto by this Hon'ble Commission. On 22.08.2017 CW 15 was examined. CW 15 held the office of Chief Reporter of Mangalam Television Channel and resigned from the Channel subsequent to the Glecasting ofvoice clipping in question. The deposition ofCW 15 can be accepted by this Hon'ble Commission in all respect. The witness honestly admitted before this Hon'ble Commission and shared his apprehension or genuine anxiety that in the 185 absence ofa well defned writien law to regulate electronic media and its functioning, any pennn can invest or make l00o/o investm€nt by any foreigner or a foreign company in the field of electronic media and thereby start a channel house and cr€ate umest in the country or to sabotage the Govemment by airing any seditious or false news with a view to create turbulence in the society as a whole by using or touching any sensitive manner which is very much eagerly protected and preserved by the majority of the people ofthis country. This statement/deposition of CWl5 h8s to be read along with the deposition of CW I that there is no norms of professional conduct available or goveming the journalist except certain guidelines of press Council of India, and those guidelines are not applicable in Channel _ Electronic Media. It is further deposed that (CW 1) National Broadcasting Association Guidelines are also available, without havins any working mechanism thereon. It is also relevant to notice by this Hon'ble Commission that the profile of the shareholders and G.N. Inform Media @) Limited is not yet produced. In short in the absence of such genuine and authentic document an adverse inference may be drawn in the light of above elucidated and admitted fact- However without knowing the background of the said comp.rny or lifting the veil of the company viz. G.N. Inform Media (p) Limited (its brand name Mangalam Television Channel), the apprehension sharcd by CW l5 in the deposition has to be visualized appreeiated and weighed impartially. The diversity existed in the social economic and cultural I ,,'"}I1.,' l*"1 \ llbtKocri.:.: . , K"' 186 background of Indian terain, may not be pennitted or allowed to be spoiled in any manner even under the so called wide banner or label of media,/press. Hence valuable suggestions and opinions of Hon'ble Comrnission in par with the terms of reference vide No. (v) there on is warranted. On 21.08.2017 CW 3 was examined and who is still working as Chief Reporter in the Mangalam Television Channel. CW 3 is figured as 3'd accused (A3) in both crimes registered by police in lieu of broadcasting in question. From the deposition CW 3 it is evident that CW 3 had antecedent of making many false story/news. In between the lines of detrnsitions of CW I & CW 3, unequivocally spell the design ofconspiracy that they had entered and entrusted to CW 8 & CW l0 for executing with the aid or help ofothers by telecasting the voice clipping in question with the knowledge ofCW 2 (A9) on the launch day ofchannel viz. on 26-03.2017. This fact has to be considered by this Hon'ble Comnission in its depth and width of the issue in hand. On 25.0g.2012 CW 7 was examined who is still working as News Editor in the Mangalam Television Channel. CW 7 is the 4s accused (A4) in both crimes registered by police by virtue ofthe telecasting ofvoice clipping. : CW 7 is an intercsted witness. But on the other hand CW7 requested the Hon'ble Comrnission not to compel him to read the transcriDt of vorae Kochi-30 t87 clipping while it was given for rcading since witness deposed that voice clipping in question was not heard by him. This attitude of CW 7 is an admission that the contents of voice clipping is totally against public order and ethics of joumalism. This has to be looked into bv this Hon'ble Commission. After closing evidence on 25.08.2017 the Hon'ble Commission posted the proceedings for hearing on 25.08.2017. Thereafter the proceedings posted to defence evidence on 13.09.2017- A witrress schedule of two witnesses were filed on behalf of CW I but on that day those witnesses were absent and evidence was closed- On 15.09.2017 the Hon'ble Commission visited Mangalam Television Channel and its office at Thiruvanrnthapuram after issuing due notices for the parties to the proceedings. The purpose of such visit is to understand the modus operandi and intemal working arrangement prevailed in the said channel in connection with its telecasting of a programme/news etc. The Hon,ble Commission also visited tle archives of the channel, intended to save all tle progErmmes aired for certain period depends upon the importance of the programme aired or forever- The compact disk contained the programme contained the voice clipping .! telecast on 26-O3.2017 generated from the archives is handed over to the Hon'ble Commission. The same copy is already recovered by the investigating ofhcer during the course of investigation of crimes registered. /'I u.t4 188 In the meantime CW l0 submitted the copy of complaint filed under sections I 90 & 200 of Cr.P.C against CW I 7 for the offences prmishable under sections 354 A, 354 D & 509 of Indian Penal Code before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. CWl0 specifically made a prayer along with rhe copy of the said complaint to accept same as her version before this Hon'ble Commission. At a glance it can be straight away submitted that the said complaint insulated with incurable defects which is sufficient to cr€ate reasonable suspicion in the mind of any prudent man. In short the ssid complaint is frivolous and vexatious and devoid of truth. It is also relevant to notice by this Hon'ble Cornmission that the infirmity attached to the said complaint unequivocally spells its improbability and it further strengthens suspicion towards the allegation/alleged incident. Minimum material particulars rcgarding an incident narrated in a complaint would attribute some genuineness regarding the alleged commission of crime. Here in the said complaint wherein CW l0 stands as de facto complainant lacks those material aspects or primary evidence. Hence no court of law can act upon such complaint. Hence this Hon'ble Commission can brush aside all contentions raised in the complaint wherein CW l0 is the de facto complainant at the threshold as frivolous, vexations and tainted with mala fide intention and devoid of tnith. Kochi-30 189 ReDlv to ar{unent not€r The gist of contentions in the Argument Note ofCW I is nothing but to fill-up the lacuna of defence evidenee to be taken in the criminal case by CW with I the assistance of Hon'ble Commission by sending the .edited voice clipping' to voice identification expert for determining the veracity and authorship ofthe available voice therein. There is only one fact available as far as the above issue is concemed i.e., 'an edited voiee clipping'. The entire lis herein is based upon that ,that fact. Hence dividing fact in issue' into two segments and styling them .collateral as 'primary facf and fact disputes' is absolutely str€tch .goal of imagination with mala fide intention to achieve the of defence, since CWI herein is the first accused in two crimes registered rclating to the fact in issue. However, the proposition put forward by CW I in the argument note is absolutely r€pugnant to the principles of Criminal Jurisprudence. Hence the Hon'ble Commission can safely brush aside the same at the .discharging threshold as unGnable. The contention regarding onus' i.e. burden ofproof: S. l0l ofthe Indian Evidence Act, lg72 defines burden of proof. The gist of the section is that, when a person is bormd to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that burden of proof lies on that person. CW I claims the authorship and veracity of the voice clipping as it belongs to CW 17. CW | 7 denies the same. lq) The above legal proposition estopped to make any more explanation regarding the issue. Now the intention behind the 'onus theory' is more obvious i.e., the 'goal of defence' with the assistance of this tlon'ble Commission- In surn all the contentions in the argument note ofCWl lacks concrete legal substratum or proposition of law' The gist of contentions of argument note of CW 2, CW4 & CW6 are also in par with the argument note of CW l- Hence the above noted contentions (reply) is also relevant to the argument note of CW 2, CW 4 and CW 6 and that may be appreciated by this Hon'ble Commission' The gist of contention in argument note ofCW 3 that the finding of the Hon'ble Commission relating to criminal liability of CW I or CW 3 will adversely affect the ongoing criminal investigation is out of place since the terms of retbrence of Hon'ble Commission (already approved and recognized by Hon'ble High Court by judgrrent dated 08'08'2017 in WPO No. 21095 of 201?) allows to do so in accordance with law as a fact finding body constituted under statute. ln the argument note submitted on behalf of CWIT is also noticed the denial ofthe veracity and authorship ofvoice clipping in question. The Hon'ble Commission can consider the observation in 1995 (2) SCC 161 and make necessary opinion within the terms of reference ofNo. (v) in adherence with the constitutional parameters relating to the subject matter in hand. //*,."_ -- vr \ ,';, \.1 liiirocni':"' ' .r' \i---t ./:: \-J'c- - "'' r ' \*:,' l9l CIIAPTER 12 Conclusions on Terms of Reference Nos. I to 4 l2.l Veracity ofthe voice clipping This Commission has been asked to inquire into the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of Minister of the State telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26 .03 -2017 . As part of the inquiry, this Commission issued notice to CW 1 R. Ajithkumar and CW 2 Sajan Varghese, C.E.O and Chairman respectively of Mangalam Television Channel under Section 5(2) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act,l952 read with Rule 5(2) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 to submit answers to the following questions relating to the voice clipping : 19. Who recorded the conversation said to be that ofa Minister of the State telecast on 26.03.2017? 20. Who is the Minister of the State the conversation of whom was recorded ? 2l . State whether the conversation was recorded with the knowledge and consent ofthe Minister? 22. Who was the person or persons involved in the conversation with the Minister? 23. Are you ready to produce the voice clipping containing 197 the entirc conversation between the Minister and the person or persons involved ? (Ifthe answer is yes, produce the voice clipping along with the transcript) 24. How long the entire convemation lasted ? 25. Are you ready to produc.e the phone and other electronic instmments used for recording the conversation? (lfthe answer is yes, produce the phone and other electronic instruments) 26. What was the circumstances in which or that lead to the above conversation? 27. State whether the recorded conversation was edited by you or others? ( If others are involved, state their name and address) 28. Who was the person/persons responsible for editing or deleting any portion ofthe conversation recorded ? (State their name or names and address) 29. Under what constitutional provision or law the said conversation was aired in Mangalam TV Channel? 30. What was the objective in airing the said conversation stated to be dtat of Minister ofthe State ? 3l . Are you facing any legal action or criminal proceedings relating to the airing ofthe News on 26.03.20172 (lf the answer is .yes', fumish ,the particulars ofthe legal proceedings) 32. Any other r€levant facts or information regarding the above matter ? (F-umish details) 193 They were also directed to produce or file the following documents and instruments :- 2- Any electronic instmments or other instruments/ devices used for recording the conversation of the Minister on the basis of which the News was aired in the Mangalam Channel on 26.03.2017; 3. If the aforesaid documents or electronic instruments or other instrumentVdevices are not in your possession and control, give the name and address ofthe persons who have possession and control over such documents and electronic inshuments; 4. An affidavit along with the aforesaid documents, electronic instruments or other instruments/devices stating that the said facts and information are true within your knowledge and belief; Both CW I and CW 2 did not file statement/affidavit or produced instruments as per the nol.ice issued to them and also did not furnish answers to the questions. Thereafter, both CW I Ajithkumar and CW 2 Sajan Varghese filed statements belatedly at the stage of evidence. They did not answer question Nos. 19, 2l to 32 regarding the voice clipping and persons involved in the recording and editing of the voice clipping and also did not produce the instruments/devices used for the recording of the alleged conversation claiming protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of lndia on the ground that they are accused in the criminal cases rcgistered by the police regarding the telecast ofthe 194 voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State in the Mangalam l'elevision Charmel on 26.03.2017. During the inquiry, at the evidence stage, this Commission again put the above questions to CW I R. Ajithkumar regarding the making and whereabouts of the voice clipping and tlre instruments/devices used for recording and editing the conversation. CW I R. Ajithkumar refused to answer these questions claiming protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution which declares that 'no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself '. Thereupon, this Commission informed CW I R. Ajith Kumar about the proGction and immunity provided to him under section 6 ofthe Commissions of lnquiry Act, 1952 which reads as follows:- S. 6. Statements made by persons to the Commission. - No statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement: Provided that the statement - (a) is made in reply to a question which he is required by the Commission to answer, or (b) is relevant to the subject - matter of the inquiry. Though the Commission read out the above provision to CW I R. Ajithkumar, still he refused to answer the questions. 195 On a careful consideration of the above provisions in the Constitution and the Commission of Inquiry Act, I am of the view that CWI R. Ajithkumar is not justified in refusing to answer the above questions in view ofthe decision of the Suprcme Court in Kehar Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration) (AIR 1988 SC 1883, per Shetty J at page 1946 - t947) "The Commission under the Act is given power to regulate its own procedure and also to decide whether to sit in camsra or in public. A Commission appointed under the Act does not decide any dispute. There are no parties before the Comrnission. There is no /is. The Commission is not a Court except for a limited purpose. The procedure of the Commission is not a Court except for a limited purpose. The procedure of the Commission is inquisitorial rather than accusatorial. The Commission more'often may harre to $ve assurance to persons giving evidence before it that their statements will not be used in any subsequent proceedings except lor perjury. Without such an assurance, the persons may not come forward to give statements. lf f,ersons have got lurking fear that their statements given before the Commission are likely to be used against them or utilized for productive use on them, in any other proceeding, they may be reluctant to expose themselves before the Commission. Then the Commission would not be able to perform its task. The Commission would not be able to reach the nuggests (sic.) 196 of tnrth from the obscurc horizon- The purpose for which the Commission is constituted may be defeated ". xx x x x x x x x x x 'Apart from that, it may also be noted that Section 6 contains only one exception. That is a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement. When the Legislature has expressly provided a singular exception to the provisions, it has to be normally understood lhat other exceptions are ruled ouf'- It has further come out from the evidence ofCW 2l Shanavas' Dy.S.P. who is investigating the case that CW 1 R. Ajithkumar caused the disappearance of evidence by destroying the original recording of the conversation. On the date when CW I R. Ajithkumar was issued with a notice to appear before the police, that is, on 04.04.2017, CW I lodged a complaint that his bag containing the laptop and mobile phone were stolen from his car. Cr. No. 549117 of Museum Police Station under section 379 IPC was registered by the police. After investigation Sub Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station referred the case as false. From the circumstances, it can be concluded that the laptop and mobile phone must have contained the original recording of the convenation and CWI deliberately caused is disppearance to avoid producing the same before the police. A perusal of the evidence of CW I discussed in Chapter 7.1 and his contentions in cross-examination discussed in Chapter .l 1.2 reveals that he is not at all a credible witness and he is unscrupulous in stating falsehood one after another before the Comrnission, often mutually contradictory. He is a joumalist who claims that truth is relative- Such a contention is objecting to ethics. lt is relevant to quote Karen Sanders in Ethics & Joumalism at p ge 22. I 197 " Relativism argues that ethics is what each person dictates for themselves. It is subjective, personal and unable to fumish absolute and universal norms. If we are a relativist faced with someone who believes in the rightness of child sacrifice, we would have noway of advancing an argument in our favour. We would have to maintain that they have as much right to believe that child sacrifice was acceptable as I to say that it was wrong. In a certain sense, relativism extinguishes ethics because it maintains that neither right nor wrong exist apart from the option we adopt about them. No opinion has any authority apart from the point of view of the person who adopts it. This approach, so characteristic of much modem thinking, is in fact an age-old debate going back to the ancient Greeks. Plato explores it in Thaerdtts to show that tlre attempt to hold relativism as a principle is undermined by the very fact that it is relative. Bemard Williams has described relativism as 'possibly the most absurd view to have been advanced even in moral philosophy' (1993:20). He shows that it involves trying to establish a non- relative principle (a morality of toleration) as a means of justiffing ethical relativism". In short, CWl R. Ajithkumar is a joumalist without any ethics. As CWI and CW2 have total control over the Mangalam Television Channel in their capacity as C-E.O. & Managing Director and Chairman 198 of the Mangalam Television Channel respeclively and as they have deliberately not produced the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State t€lecast on 26-03-2017 in the Mangalam Television Channel before the Cornmission, as evidence to prove the veracity of the same, it can only be inferred by the Commission that the voice clipping that was telecast was not actually the voice clipping said to be that ofa Minister of the State as claimed by the Mangalam Television Charmel. [t has come out fiom the evidence of CW 8 S.V. Pradeep that just before the commencement ofthe news programme at 10 a.m- on 26.03.2017 the pen drive containing the voice clipping was handed over to him by CW I R' Ajithkumar and CW 8 S.V. Pradeep in tum handed over it at the Edit suit to a Video Editor. It has also come out fiom the evidence of CW9 Manjith Varma who was News Editor at that time in Mangalam Television Channel that CW I R. Ajithkumar was present in PCR at the time of telecast of the voice clipping. It has also come out from the evidence of CW 8 S.V. Pradeep, who is a confident of CW I R. Ajithkumar that after the telecast of the voice clipping, Teena Krishnan, Secretary to C.E.O, R. Ajithkumar came to get back the pen drive. Thus there is clear evidence before the Commission that befofe and after the telecast ofthe voice clipping, CW 1R. Ajithkumar was in possession of the pen drive containing the voice clipping and he was also present at the PCR during the telecast ofthe voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State. Nowlwillproceedtodiscussthekindandthenatureoftheevidencethat was required to be produced or caused to be produced by CW 1 R. Ajith Kumar and CW 2 Sajan Varghese to prove the veracity ofthe voice 199 clipping said to be that of a Minister of the Slate telecast by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26 .03.2017 . The voice clipping telecast by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 is an electronic record. The provisions in the Evidence Acl 1872 relating to the proof of electronic records are as follows:- S. 22-A. When oral admissions rs to contents of electronic records are relevant. - Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question- S. 59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. - All facts, except the [contents of documents or electronic records], may be proved by oral evidence. S, 6+A Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record. - The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions ofsection 65- B. S. 6$8. Admissitflity of electronic records.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ac! any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer @ereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, ifthe conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proofor production of the 200 original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub'section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:- (a) The computer outPut containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or proves information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use ofthe comPuter; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; @ t}roughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating pmperly or, if not then in respect of any period in which it was not operating property or was out of operation during that part ofthe period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents: and 201 (d) thc intbrmation contained in the electronie record reproduces or is derived fiom such information fed into the cornputer in the ordinarl coursc of thc said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information or the purposes ofanl, activities regularly c3rried on oYer that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub section (2) was regularly performed by computcrs. whether - (a) by a combination of computers operating over that periodt or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or O by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in anv other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, ofone or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingll. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue oithis section, a ceftificate doing any ol the lirllowing things. that is to say, - (a) idcntitying thc elcctronic record contairring the statement arrd describing thc manner in which it was produced: 202 (b) giring such particulars of any device involred in tltc production of that electronic record as nray be appropriate tbr the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computcr; C dcaling r.r ith any oithe matters to uhich thc conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible ofticial position in relation to the operation ofthe relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of anrv matter stated in the certificatei and fbr the purposes ofthis sub-section it shall be sufllcient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowlcdgc' and beiieiof the persons stating it. (5 ) For the purposes ofthis section, - (a) information shall be taken to be supplied kr a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate forrn and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without hunrau intcrvention) by rreans ol' any appropriate equipment; (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by anv ollicial inlbrmation is supplied rvith a vierv to its being stored or processed lbr the purposes of tirose activities by a computer operated otherwise than in thc course of those activities, that infbnnation, il duly supplied to that computer,shall be taken to be supplied to it in the coursc of thosc uctivities; ar' - 20:l e a computcr output shall bc takcn to havc ocen produced by a cortrputer whethcr it uas produccd by. it directly or (with or without human itrtervention )bv means of any appropriate equipment,'. Explanation }:or rhe purposes of this section any re{brence to infomation being derived from other information shall be a ref'erence to its being derived there from bv calculation, comparison or an)/ other process. As held by p.V. p.K. the Suprelne Court in Anwar v. Basheer l(2014) l0 Supreme Court Cases 4731 : " any documenlary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 65-8. Section 65-8 deals with the admissibilitv of an electronic record". In vi!.w of S. 59 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence is admissible to prove the contents ol'an electronic recoro . The inquiry of the Commission has yielded copies of rhe news progranrme telecast bv the Nlanqalarn I'elevision Channel on ?6-03.2(\17 which included the voicc clipping. One copy of rhe voice clipping in compacl disc ((il)) is produced by OW2l Shanavas, t)y.S.p. who rs one of the investigating officer of the Special Investigating Team (Sll') to investigatc tlre crimcs legister.ed otl the basis ol'ttre cornplaints r.egistered rn conneclion with the tclecast of the voice clipping. CW?| has also produced the Annexure - | transcript ofthe voice clipping. Another 204 cop) is reecived b,n' the Commissiorr as lirrwarded by the Secretary in the Ministry of lnfbmration & Broadcasting (MIB), Govemlncnt of India (GOl) along with the Annexure Il report of the Electronic N'tedia Monitoring Centre (ENIMC) tunctioning under the MIB' MIB had received several complaints against the Mangalam lelevision (lhannel afier telecasting thc- r'oice clipping containing sexuall5'explicit cot.ttetrts causing annoyance to the general public who had occasion to view the news programme oi lvlangalarn Television Channel on 2(r.03.2017. The third copy of the news programme was obtained by the (lommission directly flom the Mangalam Television Channel during the local inspection ol' the office of the Mangalam 'l'elevision Channel on 15.09.2017. A 4'r' copy of the voice clipping was received fiom the NBA. None ofthe above copies ofthe voice clipping are admissible in evidence as their authenticity is not established under section 65-B olthe Evidence Act. In the decision ref'erred to above in (2014) l0 Supreme Court Cases 473. it is held that : "an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless thc requirenrents under scction 65-B are satisfied". It was also hcld that : ".....i1'an electronic record as such is used as pritttary evidencc under section 62 of the [rvidence Act, the same is aclmissible in evidcnce, w'ithout cornpliance of the conditions in Section 65-B ofthe Evidence Act". f.', ]]\!/ li*o[F ocnr r! r rV.-)-.. - 205 irr this casc the primary cvidcncc or secondar.y c., idcncc could haic been produced cornplS irrg rvirh S.65-8 of the Evidence _Act, onl1,by CW I R. A.iithkumar ll'ho is tbund to havc. bccn in possession of the original electronic document as provcd tionr the evidcnce ot CWg S.V. Pradeep and other witnesses. CWI atso caused disappearance ofthe said evidence as reyealed !'re'ur tlre' cvidclce r-rt'CW: I Shana\Jas. [)y.S.p. rvhr is investigatinr the case. When it is required to prove an electronic record, what is rclevant is. a) Direct evidence when the owner of lhe content deposes orally in which case he can produce the computer output as a rendition frorn lhe cotrrputcr. b) Indirect evidence *,hen a third party produces a print out or a digital copy of another electronic record and certified it under Section 6-5 B. In this case there is neither direct evidence or indirect evidence as Der law of the electronic record, i.c.. the voice clippinq telecast bv Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.201'l As it is lbund that the're is no adnrissitrle primarl'er.idence or secondarl evidence of the electronic record in question, what is to be considered next is whcther there is anl adrnissible oral er idcnce as to the contents of the electronic documcnt in question_ thal is the voice clipping telecast bv tl-re Mangalam l.clcvision Channel on 26.01.10 | 7. l hc witness competenl to give oral evidence as to the contents ofthe voice clipping in question is CW l0 Nazila ,r-azimuddin tho allegcdll rccordcd rhe original conversation whiclr ltrlmed the contents of the voice clippinu said to be that ofa Minister ofthe State. As alrcady discussed in Chapter r-.-xD Kochi-30 ]q; ?06 6.2 and 8.2 above, Cwl0 Nazila Nazimuddin did not appear beforc the Commission to adducc evidence in spite ol several opportunities granted and an official memorandum issrred waming her that the Commission will have to draw an adverse inference against her in the inquiry on her failure to appear before the Commission. Thus there is also no admissible oral evidence as to the contents ot the voice clipping. 'l'he next question to be considered is the oral evidence ofCW I R. Ajith Kumar, CW I R. Jayachandran, CW 4 M.P. Santhosh, CW 7 Firoz Sali Moharnmed and CW 8 S.V. Pradeep, the Mangalam journalists u,ho havc a case that they belicve that thc voice in the voice clipping is that of the tbrmer Minister A.K. Saseendran- The contention of these witnesses and the Counsel appearing for them rs that the voice in the voice clipping is not denied by the former Mrnrster A.K. Saseendran till he appeared before the Commission. lt is also contended that Minister A-K. Saseendran resigned betbre any preliminary inquiry and this conduct is an admission that thc talk was by him and it rvas his voice. In Chapter 4.2 of the report, it is already rel'erred to the reason tbr his resignation given b1 CW l7 A.K. Saseerrdran. While arrnouncing his resignation, CW l7 denied the allegations against him by the Mangalarn 'Ielevision (lhannel. In the statement tiled by him and in answer to rhe quesliorrnaire issLrcd lo hinr b1 thc Comtnission undcr section -s(2) ofthe (lommission of Inquiry Act. 1952, CW | 7 srated that he did nor talk as broadcasl in the voice clipping and ir is uot his talk. Ile never misbehaved and talked in a lewd manner t() any woman who approached 207 him lbr assrstance. He also stated rhat the ralk in rhe voice ciipping is nor that of a Ministcr and ir is only a prilatc ralk and that roo onh that ofa male. ln the evidence befbre the Comnrission discusscd in Chapter 7.1? of this repolt, C\\' i7 categorically denied that the roicc in thc .,oicc clipping aired on 26.03.3017 bclongs to him. Regarding the allcgations of certain witnesses before the Commission that he had admitted the voice to be his. CW l7 A.K. Saseendran denied that he cver admitted ir anywhere. llxcepl the above interested Mangalam Television Channel witresses, there is no cvidence ofanl independent witnesses that they recognised or identified the voice ol'the voice clipping as that ol.the former Ministcr A.K. Saseendran. CW l3 Sandhy,a who was present in the studio aiter the telecast ofthe voice clipping was askcd by CW 6 anchor r.vhether she recognised the voice and CW I li replied that she did know. According to CW l.i it rvas the voice ol a nrale irr his beclroom talking 10 a woman. she Later was told that it was Minister A.K Saseendran. In thc cross_ examination fbr CIW I, CW l3 repeated thar she did not identily the voicc as that of rlre Minister A.K. Sascendnrr. On \.eril,ving the C.D. of the programme news obtained by the Commission it was seen that the name of Minister as that of A.K. Saseendran was first revealed by tne 'fclevision Mangalam Channel b1. exhibiting the scroll and thereatter announced bi, the Ohief Reponcr of Mangalam [)aily, Renjirh that it was the voice of the Minister A.K. Sasecndran. None of the above Mangalam Ielevision (ihannel joumalists have a case that thcy recorded or that the), identilled tlre voicc ofCW l7 A.K. Saseenclran upon lhe telecast ofthe Ioice clipping. (hly ('W l0 Nazila Nazimuddin has the , t' 208 ease in Anne\urc lV eornplaint that slre tceorded the talk ol'(lW l7 A.K. Saseendran. Therefore, the only competent \\.itness who can depose bcfbrc thc Comrnission regarding thc idcntilication of \oice is C\\/ l0 Nazila Nazirnuddin who wilfulll and deliberately did not appear betbre the Commissiorr. Iherefbre thefe is no admissible identification of the roice ofCW l7 A-K. Sasccndlan b1 oral e'.ide'ncc. In this context the law declared by tbe Supreme Court on the subject of identitlcation by voice and the necessary conditions precedent tor conducting voice identification test is pertinent. In the decision reported in (2011) 4 SCC l4-1 (Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar ls. State of Maharashtra), it is stated as follows : "il. In oul opinion. the evidcnce oivoice identification is at hest suspect, if nor, wlrolly unreliablc. Accurate voice identillcation is much more difficult than visual identification. It is prone to such extensivc and sophisticated tarnpering. doctoring and editing that the realit) can be cornpletely rcplaced br' fiction. Thereftrre. the courts have to be extrcurcl) crutious in basing a conriction pur!'l) txl th!- evidence of voicc idcntitlcation. This court, in a nLrmber of judgments cmphasised thc importance of the prccautions. uhich are necessan t() he takcn in placint anv rcliance on the er idencl' ol voic!. idcntiticatiolt. 32. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Nlcha this courl nrade lirllowing Obselrutions: (S(i(i p.2(r, Para l9) 209 "19. We think that the High Court was quite right in holding that the tape-records of speeches were 'documents', as defined by Section 3 ofthe Evidence Act, it stood on no different footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on satisrying the following conditions : (a) The voice of lhe person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the rccord or by others who know it. (b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker ofthe repon and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be therc so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record. O The subject, matt€r recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to nrles of relevancy found in the Evidence Act" 33. In Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, again this court stated some of the conditions necessary for admissibility of tape-recorded slatements: (SCC p. 623, para 32) '(l) The voice ofthe speaker must be duly identified by the maker ofthe record or by others who recognise his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identifr the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proofto determine whether or not it was really the I ; !.u 2to voice ofthe speaker. (2) The accuracy of the tap€-recorded statement has to be proved by the maker ofthe record by satisfactory evidence - direct or circumstantial. (3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure ofa part of a tape-recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. (4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of the Evidence Act (5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe for official custody. (6) The voice ofthe speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance". In view ofthe above decision ofthe Supreme Court it is only to be found that there is no admissible evidence of voice identification in this case and also that frere is no scope for a voice identification test as the alleged original conversation is admittedly edited and thereby tampered with and the maker of the record of conversation has not adduced evidence during the inquiry to prove the recording of the conversation or identified the voice. As observed by the Supreme Court above where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice ofthe soeaker. I tl '+1 r]"'o.r,-.1 l , '\:. - -i" 1'' 2tl In the absence ofany admissible documentary or oral evidence regarding the identification of the voice in the voice clipping, it cannot be fbund that the voice clipping is that ofCW l7 A.K.Sasendran. Therefore, the contentions of the Counsel for CW I R. Ajithkumar, CW 2 Sajan Varghese and other Mangalam Television Channel witnesses for voice identification cannot be accepted. It is in the said circumstance. t}le Commission has rejected the application for sending the voice clipping for voice identification test. Apart from the above reasons this Commission has made it clear in the order rejecting the application for voice identification t€st that the conducting of such a voice identification test comes within the domain of the investigation agency. As investigation is going on, it is open to the investigating officers to take steps to conduct the voice identification test, ifthey deem it fit. It is tbr the parties who claim the veracity of the voice clipping to produce the admissible oral and documentary evidence including the original voice recording or the evidence ofthe person who allegedly recorded the same. is It also pertinent to note that the contentions advanced by the Counsel for CW I R. Ajithkumar, CW 2 Sajan Varghese and other Mangalam witnesses is against the law of evidence and basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. When the Mangalam Television Channel has broadcast the voice clipping said to be that of Minister of the State, A.K. Saseendran, it is for the channel to produce the original and unedited recording of the conversation before the investigating agency or the Commission of tnquiry to establish that it is the voice of the former Minister. Instead of availing the immunity granted to these witnesses _ CW I, CW 2 - under Section 6 ofthe Commissions oflnquiry Act, 1952, ! trL: 217 Article 20(3) of the they have wronglY claimed protection under Constitution' Saseendran should It is also a strange argument that CW l7 A'K prove that it is not his voice in the undergo voice identification test to under Article 20(3) of the voice clipping when he is entitled to protection the complaint filed by CW l0 Constitution of lndia as he is the accused in talking to CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin on the ground that he had admitted talked to cw l0 tlfough mobile phone. CW 17 admitted rhat he had Details Record (CDR) Nazila as a media person' Annexure -lX Call from her phone No' shows that 19 calls were made by CW 10 l7 A'K' Saseendran 7(,25l5g952to the phone No 9847001879 ofCW Saseendran is very and 16 catls by CW 17 to CW 10' CW l7 A'K' be seen from the fiiendly towards the memben ofthe fourth estate as can Mangalam Television evidence of CW 15 A.M' Yazir, reporter of was asked by the Channel Channel at Malappunm. On 25'03'2017 he Saseendran When authorities to get an interview from the Minister A'K' interview' CW 17 informed CW 15 A.M. Yazir contacted CW 17 for the that he would come him to suggest a suitable place for the interview and promised' there. CW 15 deposed that CW 17 granted the interview as towards This shows the friendly approach of CW 17 A'K' Saseendran 35 calls were made media persons whether male or female' Therefore' if as seen from during a period of3 months from 16'11'2017 to 16'02'2017 P' it could be Annexure - D( CDR as deposed by CW 22 Bijumon' Dy'S in only in the circumstance as deposed by CW l7 before the Commission the Commission' the absence ofcontra evidence by CW 10 Nazila before | )/ Kochi-30lli Though CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin has a case in the Annexure _ IV complaint and Annexure - V statement trefore the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram that the former Minister A.K. Saseendran had sexually explicir talks with her, the material particulars of the said talk are not given either in Arnexure - IV complaint or Annexure - V swom statement. CW l0 deliberately abstained from appearing before the Commission even aller a waming from the Commission that the Commission would be forced to draw an adverse inference against her in the inquiry, if she failed to appear before the Commission. As CW l0 Nazila has prayed for accepting as her version the Annexure - IV complaint and Annexure - V swom statement, the Commission has to consider the complaint and the swom statement. It is pertinent to note that CWl0 has not given the date of occurrence in the complaint oi in thc swom s'ratement before the Court. The only indication is that it was after 08.11.2017 on which date CW l0 Nazila had interviewed CW I 7 Minister. The phone calls started from 16.11.2017. It is seen that the first four calls were made by CW l0 Nazila. Only thereafter there was a call from CW 17 A.K. Saseendran as seen from Annexure - IX CDR. It is stated in page 2 of the Annexure - IV complaint that it was a few days after the first interview on 08.11.2017, she again contacted the Minister A.K. Saseendran for a discussion on the subject of she-toilet facility in K.S.R.T.C and obtained an appaintment to meet him at his official residence at 8 a.m., but she could not reach at the appointed time. As she did not go , he telephoned her several times and asked her to reach his otficial residence at about 3 p.m. A perusal ofAnnexure IX CDR zl4 shows that there are no record of CWIT calling her several times after 8 a.m. on a particular day. CW l0 Nazila in Annexure - IV complaint has stated that she reached the house ofthe accused (CW l7) at about 3.30 p.m. in her office vehicle along with her colleagues. In the Annexure - V swom statement before the Court. it is stated that she reached the official residence of the Minister at 3.30 p.m. Thus there is no consistent case regarding the time when she reached the official residence of the Minister. Thereafter it is stated that she alone entered the house ofthe accused and the staff present there asked her to go to the upstairs of the residence and she went upstairs. This version of t}re complainant is highly improbable. As a reporter of a Television Channel at least the complainant would take the cameraman or another colleague with her for the interview with the Minister. She has no case that she was asked to meet th€ Minister alone. Further when an appointment for the meeting with lhe Minister is granted and the reporter reaches the official residence, there would be official records regarding the arrival of the visitor by the staff of the Minister. But the complainant has no such case in the Annexure - IV complaint or the Annexure - V swom statement. Again regarding the description of the alleged offence by the accused there is inconsistency regarding the alleged act by the accused in the Annexure - IV complaint and the Annexure - V swom statement. It is stated in the complaint that the accuscd showed her his genitais. What is stated in the swom statement is that the accused undressed and thereupon she left the place. Thus a perusal of the Annexure - lV complaint and Annexure - V swom statement shows that it is a complaint without fumishing the date of 215 occurrence of the crime, the correct time and inconsistency regarding the particular act which constituted the offence and without the necessary averments regarding the offences punishable under sections 354(D) ofthe lndian Penal Code and S. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 alleged in the Annexure - IV complaint. There is also no explanation in the complaint or swom statement for the inordinate delay in reporting the alleged offences committed by a Minister of the State, if the alleged incident was true. CW l0 is not an ordinary woman. Being a reporter ofthe Television Channel she must be aware of the authorities to whom the incident could have been reported as she did on 03-04'-2017 when she complained to the Chief Minister and the Director General of Police and thereafter on 05.04.2017 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. She could have also complained to the Women's Commission of Kerala which is a statutory body to protect women. She could also have taken up the matter with the Network of Women in Media Kerala which body takes up the cause of women working in the media of Kerala. Thercfore, the timing of the complaint assumes importance. On 26.03.20'17 Mangaram Television Channel telecast the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of State. On the same day Transport Minister A.K. Saseendran resigned demanding an inquiry to bring out the truth. On 29.03.2017 Govemment of Kerala declared a judicial inquiry and the Commission of lnquiry was appointed as per notification dated 31.03.2017. On 30.03.2017 Crime No. 5l and 52/CR/OCWI /Tvpm, were registered in which CWl0 complainant is a suspected accused- On 30.03.2017 CWI R. Ajithkumar, CEO of Mangalam Television Channel tendered an apology to the general public explaining that it was a sting operation 216 carried out by the Television Channel through a woman joumalist who volunteered for the same. Police issued notice to CW I R. Ajithkumar and others of Mangalam Television Channel to appear before the police on 04.04.2017 for questioning. lt is in that context, CW l0 gave a complaint on 03.04.2017 to the Chief Minister and Director General of Police against the accused former Minister A.K. Saseendran and thereafter rushed to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram with the Annexure - IV complaint dated 05.04.2017. Therefore, it can be seen that the Annexure - lV complaint was filed by CW l0 to shield herself and other accused before the Commission of lnquiry and in the two criminal cases and declared herself a victim ofsexual harassment. lt seems thatthe strategy worked forCW l0 Nazila and other accused Mangalam Television Channel joumalists. 'fhe police did not even question her till 04.08.2017 as seen frotn the progress report of investigation filed by CW2l Shri. Shanavas, Dy.S.P. On a careful perusal of Annexure - IV complaint and Annexure -V swom statement of the complainant before the Cou( of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, this Commission of lnquiry is of the considered opinion that the complaint of CW 10 will not stand judicial scrutiny with application of mind in view of the absence of the necessary ingredients of a crime like date of occurrence, correct time and occurrence witnesses, the inordinate delay in preferring the complaint and the circumstances in which the complaint was filed. Two witnesses whose swom statements were recorded, have only hearsay knowledge of the occurrence, stated by the complainant. In this context the decision 217 of the Supreme Coun reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (Strte of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others) is relevant. It was held by the Suprerne Court that : * (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can evereach ajust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding agahst the accused. (6)...... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Though the above legal propositions were made in a different context, they are squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Commission of lnquiry is of the opinion that the veracity of the voice clipping telecast by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26-03.2017 is not proved by the Mangalam Television Channel before this Commission' It is to be noted that there are ttree different versions of the news on voice clipping stated by CWI R. Ajithkumar, C.E.O. of the Mangalam Television Channel : 218 (i) The news was aired stating that the pomographic, obscene and sexual content in the audio was made by the Minister A.K. Saseendran to a poor housewife who approached for help. When the news became a hot debate CWI R. Ajithkumar claimed that the audio clip was given by a helpless housewife victimised by the sexual atrocities of Minister A.K. Saseendran. (ii) After the appointment of Commission f Inquiry and registration of two criminal catles and widespread condemlation by the public on 30.03.2017 CWI tendered Arnexure - III apology stating that it was a sting operation by their woman joumalist as decided by eight senior members of the editorial board and tendered an unconditional apology for the misleadins news. (iii) Before this Commission of Inquiry CWI R. Ajithkumar stated that it was not a sting operation and that the channel telecast onJy the voice clipping in a pendrive which was brought by CW l0 reporter. Thus it is seen that the news telecast on 26.03.2017 was a fake news. The contradictorXr versions of the news given by CWf R Ajithkumar and tbe evidence of the other witnesses on record provcs that the voice clipping was the product of a criminal conspiracy to crerte a shocking news on the launching day of the new channel to boost its rating. 219 l2.l.l Conclusion on terms of reference No. l. In the result, the conclusion of the Commission of Inquiry on terms of reference No.l 'to inquire into the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017" is as followsi The veracity of the voice clipping said to be that of r Minister of the State telec{st by Mangalam Television Chennel on 26.03.2017 is not proved. The voice clipping appears to be N pmduct of criminal conspirary to creat€ a shocking news on the launching doy ofthe new Channel to booct its mting. 12.2 The circumstatrc€s that lead to the above conversltion .1o This Comrnission of Inquiry has been asked inquire into the circumstances that lead to the above conversation" in terms of reference No. 2 with regard io the voice clipping referred to in terms of reference No.l. It is already found by the Commission that the veracity of the voice clipping said to be that ofa Minister of the State telecast by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 is not proved before the Commission by the Mangalam Television Channel. It is the duty of the Mangalam Television Channel to prove the veracity of the voice clipping that was telecast on 26.03.2017 before the Commission by producing the digital equipment in which it was recorded and fhe original 220 unedited conversation allegedly recorded by CW 10 Nazila Nazimuddin A'K' who admittedly recorded the conversation with the accused in the Saseendran and handed over the phone to CW I CEO as stated Amexure - IV complaint. lt is the admitted case of CW I R Ajithkumar' in the CEO of the Charmel that they had only telecast the voice clipping pen drive which was handed over by CW l0 Nazila' It is admitted by CW I and other Mangalam Television Channel witresses that the voice clipping was recorded by CW 10 Nazila Nazimuddin who is still working as a reporter in the Mangalam Television Channel' But CW 10 Nazila has not appeared before the Commission to depose that the voice clipping telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26'03'2017 was recorded by her. It is already found above that when the digital equipment/computer/pen drive/mobile phone or any other device using which the original conversation was allegedly recorded is not available and no conditions in S. 65 - B ofthe Evidence Act is complied with, the copy of any sort of electronic record would be inadmissible in evidence' Thus there is a total absence of any primary evidence in the form of the orisinal electronic record or the evidence of the person who recorded the alleged conversation before this Commission of Inquiry' In the Annexure - III apology telecast by CW 1 R- Ajithkumar in the Mangalam Television Channel, his case is that it was a sting operation decided by the editorial board of the channel consisting of eight semor joumalists and the woman joumalist who conducted the sting operation who volunteered to do the same. In this context, the norms laid down by the Press Council of India and the Code of Practice prescribed by News Broadcasters Association of 221 India which the joumalists and the electronic media are bound to tbllow are relevant. Norms of Press Council of India Guidelines on Sting Operations i) A newspaper proposing to report a sting operation shall obtain a certificate from the person who recorded or produced the same certifring that the opemtion is genuine and bona fide ii) There must be concurrent record in writing of the vanous stages of the sting operation. iii) Decision to report the sting operation should betaken by the editor after satis$ing himself of the public interest of the matter and ensuring that rcport complies with all lcgal requ irements. iv) Sting operation published in print media should be scheduled with an awareness of the likely reader in mind. Great care and sensitivity should be exercised to avoid shocking or offending the reader. Fundamental Principles ofCode of Practice of NBA l) Professional electronic joumalists should accept and understand that they operate as trustees of public and should, therefore, make it their mission to seek the truth and to report it fairly with integrity and independence. Professional joumalists should stand fully accountable for their actions. 222 2) The purpose ofthis code is to document the broad paradigms accepted by the members ofthe News Broadcasters Association (NBA) as practice and procedures. That would help joumalists of electronic media to adhere to the highest possible standards of public service and integrity. 3) News Channels recognize that they have a special responsibility in the matter of adhering to high standards of joumalism since they have the most potent influence on public opinion. The broad principles on which the news channels should function are. therefore. as stated herein after. 4) Broadcasters shall, in particular, ensure that they do not select news for the purpose of either promoting or hindering either side of anv controversial oublic issue. News shall not be selected or designed to promote any particular belief, opinion or desires ofany interest group. 5) The fundamental purpose of dissemination of news in a democracy is to educate and inform the people of the happenings in the country, so that the people of the country undersland significant events and form their own conclusions. 6) Broadcasters shall ensure a full and fair presentation ofnews as the same is the fundamental responsibility ofeach news channel. Realizing the importance of presenting all points of view in a democracy, the broadcastcrs should, therefore take responsibility in ensuring that controversial subjects are fairly presented, with time being allotted fairly to each point of view. Besides the selection of items ofnews shall also be sovemed bv 223 public interest and importance based on the significance of these items ofnews in a democracy. Sting operntions : As a guideline principle, sting and under cover operations should be a last resort ofnews channels in an attempt to give the viewer comprehensive coverage of any news story. News channels will not allow sex and sleaze as a means to carry out sting operations, the use of narcotics and psychotropic substances or any act of violence, intimidation, or discrimination as a justifiable means in the recording of any sting operation. Sting operations, will also abide by the principles of self regulation mentioned above, and ncv"'s channcls will cnsure that thcy will bc guidcd, as mentioncd above, by an identifiable larger public interest. News channels will as a ground mle, ensure that sting operations are carried out onlyasatool for getting conclusive evidence of wrong doing or criminality, and that there is no deliberate alteration of visuals, or editing or interposing done with the raw footage in a way that it also alters or misrepresents the truth or presents only a portion ofthe truth. When CW I R. Ajithkumar was questioned by the Commission on norrns laid dorvn by PCI and NBA extracted above, the reply ofCW I \./as thar norms laid down by PCI are not applicable to electronic media. Contrary to his admission in the Annexure - Ill apology, CW I denied that it was a sting operation and it was a mistake to have stated so in the apology. Obviously CW I knows that the sting operation conducted by aa,l CW l0 Nazila and the Mangalam Television Channel violated the norms laid down by the PCI and the Code of Practice framed by NRA extracted above and other guidelines. The case of CW I before the Commission is that the Mangalam Television Channel just telecast the contents ofthe pen drive which was given by CW l0 Nazila' On a careful perusal ofthe entire evidence before the Commission it can be seen that the voice clipping was a created one with ulterior motive by using CW l0 Nazila. As argued by Counsel for CW l7 A.K.Saseendran: "lt is a clear case of conspiracy, mala fide intention and illegal motive on the part of the Mangalam Television Channel personals in order to increase the TRP rating of the channel on the first day of its official telecast itself. tt is come out in evidence that even before the Television channel started telecast and at the time when the newly recruited joumalists ofthe channel were given training, there was clear instruction from CW I and CW 3 to the effect that the news should be created making at least one of the Ministers are resigned from the Ministry. lt is clear that CW 3 has given specific direction to the newly recruited joumalists regarding making of exclusive bombs (exclusive breaking news). CW I wanted employees to create news by using anv method. The evidence of CW 14 Al-Neema Ashrat CW 5 Rishi K. Manoj, CW 9 Manjith Varma and that of CW 15 A.M. Yazir who were the joumalists working in the Mangalam Television Channel show that CW I and other higher-ups in the Mangalam channel wanted to create some news which gave them breaking particularly in the opening day itself. Apart from that it has come out in evidence that an investigation team was constituted by the Television channel in order to collect news using or fl*% {xochi-30 Jr; .L-_*t 225 adopting any method. It is the case of CWl4 that she did not join that group as to create or to collect news by using any method is not agreeable for her. It is also come out in evidence that the particular news item and the voice clipping is a product of the criminal conspiracy wherein CWs.l, 3, 4,7,8 etc. are actively involved. This fact is discemable from the apology made by CWI to the viewers. So the circumstances lead 10 the telecast of the fabricated voice clipping is the malicious intention of the Mangalam Television channel authorities to increase the rating even from the very beginning of its official telecasting.,' The Mangalam Television channel was planning for a big breaking news which would shock the people of Kerala on the date of inauguration of the Channel. The criminal conspiracy to create a shocking news on the date of inauguration of the Channel is apparent from the talk of CWI R. Ajithkumar and CW3 R. Jayachandran who addressed the newly recruited joumalists of the Mangalam Television channel as deposed by CWl4 Al-Neema Ashraf and CWl5 A.M. Yazir. According to these witnesses both CWt and CW3 repeatedly spoke on getting news at any cost and creating news bombs and to see that the Ministers in the Govemment resigned on the basis of the same or to see that at least one MLA resigned. CW5 Rishi K. Manoj, News Co-ordinating Editor and CW9 Manjith Varma" News Editor and Reader also deposed before the Commission regarding the workshop organised by the channel and the talks given by CWI and CW 3 requiring the trainee joumalists to make the news bombs leading to the resignation of a Minister or MLA. l.i'*\ (i(n*n, ,.')i'r Rt-;f' 226 The Commission has viewed the C.D. of the news programme of Mangalam Television channel on 26.03-2017 from 8.57 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. The C.D. shows the programmes telecast by Mangalam Television channel on th€ date of inauguration starting with the programme "Faces of Mangalam", a programme introducing the joumalists of Mangalam Television channel in which CW L R. Ajithkumar, C.E.O. of the Mangalarn Television charmel leads the discussion. In the programme the various News Readers of Mangalam Television channel introduced themselves and shared their aspirations and dreams while working for the News Channel. Notable among these news readers is CW8 S.V. Pradeep who speaks about the need to change the political scenario in Kerala which is left oriented. He advocates about an aggressive and indep€ndent stand to be taken by the new channel. CW I R. Ajithkumar boasts of the role of Mangalam Daily in the resignation of thrce Ministers in Kerala. He calls for a change in news presentation content wise. He says that the motto of the joumalists should be dedication, motivalion, adventure and hard work. He predicts that this would be proved today (26.03.2017). The news progftrmme anchored by CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan started at 10 a.m. with discussion on the subject of women's safety attended by CW I I to CW 13. Meanwhile there is scrolling, "News will get fire", "Mangalam true stories will broadcast an important news which will shock the political Kerala". CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan then talks about the coming important news. Then another scroll on the screen : 'Mangalam Television opens eyes, Kerala will catch fire'. At 10.37 another announcement regarding the upcoming important news. After some time there was telecast of the first clipping for about 3 minutes. The guests are seen much ,t ,t lt 227 embarassed. CW 6 then gives commentary and asks tle viewers to remove the children from hearing the voice clipping. CW 3 R. Jayachandran comes live through telephone @is picture shown on the screen) and announces that it lvas the voice of one of the prominent members of the cabinet and criticises in sharp words the conduct of the Minister without disclosing the name of the Minister. Then the second voice clipping is telecast. This voice clipping was full of sexually explicit words. CW 12 Dhanya Raman covers her face with both hands while CW ll Soniya George and CW 13 Sandhya close their ears, and CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan drinks water. Thereafter the Chief Reporter of Mangalam Daily, Thimvananthapuram comes live on Television and discloses the name of the Minister as A.K- Saseendran. On a careflrl consideration ofthe sequence ofthe events from the time of the training camp for newly recruited joumalists and the talks ofCW I R. Ajithkumar and CW 3 R. Jayachandran, the words used by CW I during his interaction with the News Readers in the programme 'Faces of Mangalam Television' and the scrolls and announcement regarding the shocking news prior to the telecast of the voice clipping, it can be concluded that the news progrz nme, anchored by CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan was the product of a criminal conspiracy to cause the resignation of the Transport Minister A.K. Saseendran who was targeted for the shocking news of the resignation of a Minister of the State for a lightening launch ofthe new News Channel in Malayalam where s€ores of news channels compete for the highest rating. i 67-XD i[Kochi-30 Ji; e\-_xt 228 be taken on the basis of the finding on other mi The suggestion of Counsel for CW 17 that on the first day of telecast itself Mangalam Channel was using manipulated voice recording of some person which is available in pom websites or telephone sex chatting to increase its rating and attributed it to CW 17 A.K.Saseendran in order to tamish his image and thereby leading to his resignation from the Ministry app€ars to be true. CW 22 deposed that voice mixing is possible and that it is technically feasible to collect talks made on different contexts and create a voice clipping by editing with the help of software. He said that investigation is going on. When CW 17 former Minister A.K. Saseendran denied the allegation in the press meet announcing his resignation, denied the talk in the statement filed before the Commission in reply to the notice and questionnaire issued to him and again before the Commission during inquiry, Mangalam Television channel should have produced the original unedited conversation as required and also the evidence of CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin who is still working in the channel to prove the veracity of the voice clipping. The fact that the channel did not produce the unedited original voice recording, and the failure ofCW l0 Nazila to appear before the Commission even after waming issued to her that an adverse inference will be drawn by the Commission against her in the inquiry, is sufficient to conclude that truth is not lhe defence of the Mangalam Television channel. It is significant to note that according to CW I R. Ajithkumar, CW 3 R. Jayachandran, CW 7 Firoz Sali Muhammed and CW 8 S.V. Pradeep, truth is relative. What is done by Mangalam Television channel is commerce without morality. one ofthe deadliest sins I [, il 229 mentioned by Gandhiji in his autobiography, .My experiments with Truth'. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Commission of Inquiry is of the opinion that the circumstances that led to the telecast of the voice clipping attributed to former Minister A.K. Saseendran is the malicious intention of the Mangalam Television channel to increase the rating even from the very beginning of its official telecasting. 12.2.1 Conclusion on Terms of Reference No, 2 ln the result, tlre conclusion of this Commission of Inquiry on terms of reference No. 2'to inquire into the circumstances that led to the above conversation" is as follows:- The circumstances that led to the conversation. that is the voice clipping, is the crininal conspiracy of the Mangalam Television channel management to make a shocking news to Kerala leading to the resignation of a Minister of the State so es to achieve top rating for the chsnnel on the date of its inauguration itself. 12,3 Whetber the recorded voice clipping was edited or tampered witb mala fide intentions and as to who have acted behind that. This Commission of Inquiry has been asked to ' to inquire into as to whether the recorded voice clipping was edited or tampered with mala fide intentions and as to who have acted behind that". Annexure - l is the transcript ofthe voice clipping said to be that ofa Minister ofthe State 230 aired by the Mangalam Television charmel on 26'03 '2017 ' The copy of which the voice clipping in C.D. form is produced before the Commission viewed the C'Ds is already discussed in 12.1 above. The Commission has produced before the Commission by CW 2l Shri'Shanavas' Dy'SP' and other C.Ds received by the Commission' The four C'Ds contatns alone talking the Annexure - I voice clipping which is the voice ofa male in reply to a woman in the privacy of a bedroom as deposed by CW 13 guest to Sandhya. CWl3 Sandhya, woman activist was present as participat€ in the panel discussion in the snrdio of the Mangalam Television channel on 26.03.2017 - The subject for discussion was 'Women's Safety'. The news programme was anchored by CW 6 M. Lakshmi Mohan from 10 a.m. to 12.30 p'm' The voice clipping for the first time was telecast at I l '20 a'm' At I I a'm' The Mangalam Television channel showed scroll and announcement in the Television screen that a big breaking news that will shock Kerala would be aired by the Mangalam Television channel. The actual telecast was also preceded by an introduction to the voice clipping by CW 3 R' Jayachandran in sharp words criticising the conduct of the Minister' without revealing his name, that the viewers were going to hear the voice of the Minister who is asking for the body of the poor housewife in retum for hearing her representation. After the telecast of the voice clipping the disclosure that the voice was of the Minister of the State A.K. Saseendran was made by Renjith, Chief repoder of Trivandrum Bureau of Mangalam Daily, who came live in the news programme at I L45 a.m. W 231 Conversation is an informal spoken exchange between two or more people as commonly understood. Armexure - I voice clipping contains only the talk ofa male. A perusal of Armexure -l shows that there is no continuity in the talk. Apparently it is a collection of words uttered on different occasions. Therefore, the voice clipping is evidently an edited one and also by removing the voice of the other person from the conversation. In Annexure - [V complaint CW l0 Nazila has averred that she had recorded the conversation of the accused A.K. Saseendran and handed over the phone containing the recorded conversations to the C.E.O. It is stated in the Annexure - V swom statement of CWl0 before the Court of the ChiefJudicial Magistrate that she recorded the calls as different calls. It was the said phone which was handed over to the C.E.O. after removing thE SIM. CW 21 Shri- Shanavas, Dy.S.P. in his progress report of the investigation dated 03.10-2017 has reported that he has recorded the statement of CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin who stated that she had recorded her conversation with fomrer Minister A.K. Saseendran and that she handed over the phone containing the recorded conversations and pen drive to CW3 R. Jayachandran and that the Audio clipping telecast by the Mangalam Television channel on 26.03.2017 was not in the manner recorded by her and handed over. CW 2l also deposed before the Commission that Video Editor of Mangalam Television channel, Ebin Raj and Teena Kishnan, Secretary to 212 the voice clipping. CW 2l stated that his investigation revealed that there was conspiracy and editing ofthe recorded talk. CW 22 Shri. Bijumon, Dy.S.P. who has investigated the technical aspects of the case, deposed that on 03-04.2017 he had taken into custody the voice clipping copied in a pendrive provided by Shyamkumar, Technical Offrcer of the Mangalam Television channel on the basis of a mahazar. The copy of the mahazar has been produced before the Commission by CW 21 along with the progress report of investigation dated 03.10.2017. CW 22 also deposed that the mobile phone used for recording the talk and laptop used for editing the audio clipping could not be recovered. They must have been suppressed or desaoyed by CW 1 R. Ajithkumar who gave a false complaint to the Museum Police Station. Copy of the FIR and copy of the refer report closing the investigation finding it as a false case has been produced before the Commission by CW 2l Shd. Shanavas Dy.S.P. CW 22 Shd. Bijumon, Dy.S.P. deposed before the Commission that it is technically feasible to collect talks made on different occasions or contexts and create a voice clipping by editing with the helo of software. CW 5 Rishi K. Manoj deposed before the Commission that the voice clipping was an edited one. The video editor of the Channel Ebin Raj told him that the original recording was for a duration of 29 minutes. First it was edited and reduced to 3 minutes. Then CWI R. Ajithkumar asked him to increase the length and Ebin Raj furrher edited and increased the duration to 6 minutes. The female voice was edited out. An ediied conversation is not at all credible. The telecast ofsuch a voice clipping is both legally and morally wrong. \oc|: Oe The evidence of CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan and CW 9 Manjith Varma also show that the voice clipping was made and edited for the purpose of telecast on the date of inauguration of the channel. CW 13 Sandhya and CW 14 Al-Neema also deposed that on hearing the voice clipping they understood it as an edited version of conversation by mutual agreement between two persons in private. On a careful consideration ofthe evidence before the Commission by CW 5, CW 6, CW 13, CW 14, CW 2l and CW 22 and the Annexure -t transcript of the voice clipping and on hearing the voice clipping by the Commission, the only conclusion that can be reached by this Commission is that the original recorded conversation was edited or tampered with mala fide intentions to create a shocking news leading to the resignation of a Minister as already found by the Commission in 12.2.1above. 12.3.1 The persons who acted behind the moking ofthe voice clipping This subject is already dealt with partly in detail in Chapter 3 of this report. Annexure - lll transcript of the apology telecast by CW I R. Ajithkumar on 30.03.2017 shows that the voice clipping was the product of a sting operation caried out by the Mangalam Television channel and that it was a decision taken by an editorial board consisting of eight senior joumalists of the Mangalam Television channel. lt is stated in the apology that "we appointed a female joumalist who took up the job voluntarily". But during inquiry the venion of CW 1 R. Ajithkumar is that it was not a sting operation. He also did not disclose the names of the eight senior joumalists ofthe editorial board. In spite of direction by this Commission to names ofthe editorial team in charqe on 234 26.03.2017, CW I did not produce it. What is produced is only the list of the entire staff of Mangalam Television channel and another list of editorial staff of Mangalam Television channel consisting of 30 persons as on 28.08.2017 including the name of CWl4 Al-Neema Ashraf who had resigned from Mangalam Television channel on 03.04.2017. As discussed in Chapter 3 above, CW I R. Ajithkumar' CW 2 Sajan Varghese, CW 4 M.P. Santhosh, CW 5 Rishi K. Manoj,CW 6 M. Lakshmi Mohan, CW 7 Firoz Sali Mohamme4 CW 8 S-V. Pradeep' CW 9 Manjith Varma and CWl0 Nazila Nazimuddin are prima facie involved either in the making or telecasting or both of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State and aired by the Mangalam Television charnel on 26.03-2017. Who are all actually involved in the making and telecast or both of the Annexure - I voice clipping comes within the domain of criminal investigation - which is going on as stated by CW 2l and CW 22 investigating officers. However, on a careful consideration of the evidence adduced before the Commission and on perusal of the documents produced before the Commission as enumerated and described in Chapter 9 of this report, this Commission can conclude that the voice clipping telecast by Mangalam Television channel on 26.03.2017 is the product ofa criminal conspiracy conceived and executed by CWI R. Ajithkumar, CW 3 R. Jayachandran and CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin. In addition to CW 1, CW 3 and CW 10, CW 4, CW 7 and CW 8 have played an active role in the telecast ofthe voice clipping. Though CW 6 Lakshmi Mohan was the anchor of the news prograrnme during which the voice clipping was first telecast, it appeared that she herselfwas embarrassed along with the CWll to CWIS guests present in the news room and her evidence before the Commission shows that she was mentally broken down after I *otKocir-:t Js' 235 the telecast of tlre voice clipping and she had to undergo psychiatric treatment and counselling. But the evidence of CWs.l,3,4,7 and 8 shows that they have given false evidence before this C.ommission. All the questions which cannot be disputed even at the face ofthe facts available on record are denied and disputed by these witnesses in their attempt to justif the telecast of the voice clipping and to support the fabricated and false voice clipping as a genuine one. CWs. 1,3,7 md 8 also used the word relative to evade giving truthful answers to the questions by the Commission. According to CWI truth is relative. 123.2 Conclusion on terms of reference No. 3 In the result, t}le conclusion of the Commission on terms of refence No.3 "to inquire into as to whether the recorded voice clipping was edited or tampered with mala fide intentions and as to who have acted behind thaf' is as follows:- The recorded voice clipping was edited or tampered with mala fide intentions to crerte a shocking news regarding e Minister ofthe State leading to his resignation so as to gain high rating and popularity for the Mangalam Television channel on the date of its inauguretion itself. Tbe following persons have direct involvement in the making of the voice clippingr l)CWl R Ajithkumar 2)CW3 R. Jayachatrdran 3) CW t0 Nazila Nazimuddin ,-ff-""rc 236 CW S S.V. Pradeep has active involvement in the telecast ofthe voice clipping on 26.03.2017 along with CW t R. Ajithkumar' The following persons are prima facie involved in the telecast of the voice clipping: Tbeir actual role has to be ascertained by the police during investigation. f) CW4 M.P. Santhosh 2) Cw5 Rishi K. Manoj 3) CW6 M. Lekshmi Mohan 4) CW7 Firoz Sali Mohammed 5) CW9 Manjith Varma. CW 2 Sejan Varghese is the Director/Chairman of the Cornpany which owns the Mangalam Television channel and also involved in the affairs of the Channel. Hc bas justilied the voice clipping in the statement filed by him and also in W.P. (Civil) No.21095/17 liled before the Hon'ble lligh Court of Kerala which was dismissed on 08.08.2017. Therefore he has abetted the crimes committed by other accused in tbe making and telecast of tbe voice clipping on 26.03-2017. As the Director of G,N. Info Media (P) Ltd., he is liable to be prosecuted representing the company in view of S. 85 of the I.T. Act. The Company, C.N. lnfo Media (P) Ltd., which owns the Mangalam Television Ch, :..pl is liable to be prosecuted under ,,:.'r_ - L, -i1,tl 237 section 85 of the I.T. Act, 2m0. The Dirccton of the Comprny CW I R Ajithkumer and CW 2 Sajrn Varghese are representing the Company. I 2.4 Terms of Reference No. 4 This Commission oflnquiry has been asked "to inquire into as to whether the act of airing the voice clipping is illegal and it involves illegal activities or conspiracies and if so, the legal action to be taken in this resard". 12.4.1 Whether the act of airing the voice clipping is illegal and it involves alleged ectivitics or conspirecies. One thing on which there is no dispute in this inquiry is that the voice clipping telecast by the Mangalam Television channel on 26.03.2017 consists of sexually explicit words. The reaction of CW 6 anchor and CW I I to CW 13 guests present in the news room during the telecast of tle voice clipping is already discussed in Chapter 2. Armexure * I transcript of the voice clipping is so disgusting that CW 7 Firoz Sali Mohammed, News Reader of tle Mangalam Television channel requested this Commission not io compel him to read it when the Commission asked him to read it. It is such a bundle of putrefied rubbish that was tlrown into the public information highway by the Mangalam Television charmel on 26.03.2017 . As the renowned ioumalist Sam Reynolds remarked on a sensational news, *bl$tant s€nsationalism - the worst of jounldism - snd my sctrsrtion is disgust". I\ CUa4- 2r8 There is already an observation by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the bail order refusing bail to CW I R. Ajithkumar and CW 3 R. Jayachandran after perusing the transcript that "there cannot be any doubt that they are sexually explicit" and hence the offence punishable under section 67 A of the I.T. Act is attracted. In the judgrnent dated 08.08.201 7 in W.P.(C) No. 21095/2017 filed by CW 2 Sajan Varghese to quash the notification aPpointing the Commission of lnquiry held that "if the contents ofthe audio clip which would disturb or affect the tempo of the life of the community or the tranquillity of the society, it is a matter conoeming public ordey''and " a matter relating to public order is certainly a matter of public importance" and the writ petition was dismissed. Thus there is already a finding that the Mangalam Television channel violated the reasonable restrictions specified in Article l9(2) of the Constitution in the act of telecast of the Annexure - I voice clipping on the ground of violating decency, moral ity and public order. There was wide spread condemnation of rhe airing of the voice clipping by the general public, women joumalists who held demonstrations in front of the offices of the Mangalam Television channel, cultural leaders of Kerala led by veteran writers like Anand and poet Sachidanandan who issued a joint statement and the Network of Women in Media Kerala gave a representation to the Chief Minister demanding a proper investigation to bring out the truth behind the voice clipping. NWMK also sent complaint to the Ministry of I & B and later to NBA lbr nec€ssary action against tlre Mangalam Television channel tbr the violations committed by them in the airing of the voice clipping. Many members of the public also sent complaints against the Mangalam 239 joumalists of the Mangalam Television charmel including CW 14 Al- Neema Ashraf and CWl5 A.M. Yazir resigned from the Mangalam Television channel on the issue. Later CW 5 Rishi K- Manoj and CW 9 Manjith Varma who deprecaied the airing of the voice clipping resigned from the Mangalam Television channel. Two criminal cases were registered as CBCID Crime Nos.Sl /CR/OCW- I lTvpm/2017 and 52lCR/OCW-l/Tvpm/2017 under section l20B IPC and 67 A of IT Act on the basis of the complaint filed by Adv. Sreeja Thulasi of Trivandrum and Adv. Mujeeb Rahman, State President of Nationalist Youth Consress. It is already tbund ln Chapter i2.2-l of this report thal the voice clipping telecast by the Mangalam 'lelevision channel on 26.03.2017 is the product of a criminal conspiracy of the Management of the Mangalam Television channel to creale a shocking news to Kerala leading to the resignation of a Minister of the State so as to achieve high rating for the channel on the date of its inausuration itself. Regarding the criminal conspiracy there is another dimension. In response to the notification of the Conmission of hquiry, CWl5 A.M. Yazir sent Annexure - VIII e-mail message to the Commission stating what he knew about the telecast of the voice clipping. His evidence before the Comrnission is already referred to in Chapter 7.11. He stated that a panel was formed under the leadership ofCW 3 R. Jayachandran on how to find news bombs. Cw 15 stated that many of them kept away from the team, as the said tearn had a plan to investigate certain subjects which would sabotage the present Govqgrent. It came to tleir Kochi-30 l1' 2q knowledge that there was an attempt to fiad out certain Ministers with some weaknesses and prepare a report on that. CW15 also stated that on 25.03.2017, the previous day of the launching ofthe new channel, he was told to conduct an intervi€w of the Minister A.K. Saseendran and s€nt it urgently. After the telecasl of the voice clipping said to be that of the Minister A.K.Saseendran on 26.03-2017, he came to know many stories. One of the stories was that there was a conspiracy to make Minister A.K. Saseendran resign and make Thomas Chandy a Minister. He came to know that CW 1 R. Ajithkumar talked to Thomas Chandy in Dubai and he received something in retum. According to CWl5 A.M. Yazir, when the matters are examined as per law and the conspiracy he rmderstood that three offences were committed:- ( I ) media was used to sabotage the Covernrnent; (2) media freedom was misused violating principles of media ethics ; and (3) women were used to create a media culture ofblaclqnail in Kerala In the cross-exarnination CWl T A.K.Saseendran MLA confirmed the interview given to CWl5 A.M. Yazir. ln the cross-examination by Counsel for CW2, CW17 A.K. Saseendran MLA stated that he never thought that the voice clipping was aired due to a conspiracy of any of the members ofhis party. 241 In the making of the voice clipping and its telecast on 26.03.2017, the Mangalam Television channel company, its management and joumalists committed violations ofthe provisions ofthe Constitution, violated norms ofjoumalistic ethics practice and Code of for the electronic media and committed various offences under the Indian penal Code, I.T. Act ano other laws. A perusal of the evidence adduced before the Commission and the documents received by the Commission during inquiry clearly show that the act ofairing ofthe voice clipping was illegal and it involved illegal activities. Now the Commission proceeds to examine the illegalities committed by the Mangaram Television channel and th€ illesar activities involved. 12.4.2 Violation ofthe provisions ofthe Constitution. ..press" .,media,, In the Constitution of India the word or rs not mentioned. .,press,' ..media" The or derives its freedom as an interpretation the of Anicle 19 (l) (a) of the Constitution which states : citizens "All have the right to freedom ofspeech and expression,,. This is not an absolute freedom, the limitations to this fieedom are stated in Article l9(2). "Freedom of Speech and Expression' available to the citizen alone is available to the media which is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article l9(2) in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. On the basis of the order in the bail applications of CW l, CW 3 and 242 Kerala referred to in 12-4.1 above and the evidence before thc Commission during the inquiry shows that the telecast of the voice clipping on 26.03.2017 violated the restrictions under section l9(2) on the grounds ofpublic order, presewing decency and preserving morality. There is also violation of the Right to privacy as the voice clipping appears to be the recording ofthe private talk between a male and female as deposed by CW 13 Sandhya and CW 14 Al-Neema Ashraf and other witnesses. It is held by the Supreme Court that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Articte 2l and as a part of the lieedoms guaranteed by Part lll of the Constitution (vide Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. I.lnion of India 2017(4) KLT I (SC). There is also violation of the Fundamental Dulies under Part -lV-A of' the Conslitution in the making of the voice clipping and in the telecast oi the voice clipping causing annoyance to women as deposed by CW 13 Sandhya. Under Article 5l -A : "it shall be the dutv of everv citizen of India - (e)... -....; to renou[ce practices derogatory io the dignity of women." The above duty ofevery citizen is also applicable to media. In short, the Mangalam Television channel violated Article l9(2), 2l and 5 l-A (e) oflhe Constitution of India. 243 12.4.3 programme Violation of Code prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. On the telecast of the voice clipping on 26-03.2017 by Mangalam Television channel a number of persons, Dr. pradeep K.p., Advocate, High Court of Kerala, Kurian Benny, Saiju Menon and NWMI, Kerala complained to the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre under the Ministry | of & B, Govemment of India regarding the violations by the Mangalam Television channel. On receiving the complaints, EMMC made the following report: " The content is extremely indecent, obscene and unsuitable to be played in a public space. By telecasting such news that is highly sexuai in nature, on the very first day of its launch, channel screams nothing but sensationalism for want of viewer's undivided attention, de!ing ethics of joumalism. Therefore by airing an explicit audio containing A.K. Saseendran's telephonic sex conversation, channel has apparently violated Programme Codes - 6tfl(a), 6ttl(d), 6t1l(o) and 6[51 prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, t994. However, tlre channel later issued an apology regarding the same. ACCORDDING TO PROGRAMMO CODE 6[l(a) - ) No programme should be carried in ihe cable service which offends against good tasre or decency. ACCORDDING TO PROGRAMME CODE 6[t(d] - ) No programme should be carried in the cable service which contains anything 244 obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths. ACCORDDING TO PROGRAMME CODE 6lll(0) - ) No programme should be carried in the cable service which is not suitable for unrestricted oublic exhibition. ACCORDDING TO PROGRAMME CODE 6lrl(5) - ) Programmes unsuitable for children must not be carried in the cable service at times when the largest nurnbers ofchildren are viewing". In short, by telecasting the voice clipping, Mangalam Television channel violated Rules 6(l )(a), 6(tXd), 6(lXo), 6(5) prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. 12.4.4 Violation of Norms of Journalistic Conduct of PCI and Code of Practice adopted by NBA for self-regulation. The violation of norms of joumalistic conduct and Code of Practice adopted by NBA for self-regulation are already discussed in 12.2 above. Mangalam Television channel has violated the norms of joumalist conduct regarding accuracy and faimess, right to privacy, obscenity and vulgarity and sting opemtions prescribed by PCI and Code of Practice of NBA regarding impartiality and objectivity in reporting sex and nudity and sting operations. 245 In short, the telecast of the voice clipping by Mangalam Television channel was in violation of prescribed norms ofjoumalistic conduct and Code of Practice adopted for self-regulation by NBA. 12.4.5 Olfences committ€d under the Information Technolory Act, 2000. By telecasting the voice clipping which is an obscene material, the Mangalam Television channel has committed the offences punishable under sections 67 and 67 A, S. 84 B and S. 85 ofthe l.T. Act,2000. "S. 67, Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. - Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to b€ published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or of its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees". 246 'S. 6? A. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.- Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic lbrm any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupeesand in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh nrpees". S. 84 B Punishment for ab€tment of offences - Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence ofthe abetment and no express provision is made by this Act for the punishrnent of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence under this Act. Explanation - An act of offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the ab€trnent. S. 85 Olfences by Companies - (l) Where a person committing a contravention ofany ofthe provisions of this Act or ofany rule, direction or order there under is a Company, every pennn who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the Company for the conduct of business ofthe Company as well as ll// 24t the company, shall be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to punishment ifhe proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such conversation. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (l), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any Rule, direction or order made there under has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance oi or is attribute to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty ofthe contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation - For the purpose ofthis section - (i) "Company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association ofindividuals; and 1ii) "directors". in relation to a firm. means a partner in the firm." CBCTD has already registered the case against the accused for offence punishable under section 67 of I.T. Act. They have also committed the 6t=-xD .t $,(xo"t i-roJ( JI w;-_x$ 248 offences punishable under section 67 A, S. 84 B and S. 85 of the l.T. Act. They are distinct and separate offences. In short, the Mangalam Television channel and the company which owns the Mangalam Television Channel and the persons behind it and whoever participated in the telecast of the voice clipping committed the offences punishable under sections 67 and 67 A, S. 84 B and S. 85 of the Information Technology Act" 2000. 12.4.6 Offences committed under various sections of lndian Penal Code, 1860. It is already found lhat the voice clipping is the product of a criminal conspiracy to create news bombs of the Mangalam Television channel management to shock the people of Kerala leading to the resignation of a Minister of the State so as to achieve high rating for the channel on the date of its inauguration itself. By making the voice clipping and editing and manipulating it with mala fide intentions and by telecasting the same leading to the resigration of the Transport Minister A.K. Saseendran and thereafter destroying the evidence, the Mangalam Television channel and the persons behind it and whoever participated in its telecast, prima facie appear to have committed the following offences punishable under the various Sections ofthe Indian Penal Code. " S. l(D IPC - Punishment of Nbetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. - .\',. :",i _'' -- r' oc ' i\ -..).'t' .. .:, 249 Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence ofth€ abetment, and no expr€ss provision is made by this Code for the prmishrnent of such abetment, be prmished with the punishment provided for the offence- S, 120 B IPC - Punishment ofcriminal conspiracy.- (l) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [Imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment ofsuch a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as ifhe had abetied such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. 5,201 IPC - Causing disappearance of evidence of offence' or giving false informstion to scr€en offender. - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital ofience. - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been comrnitted is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; 250 if punishable with imprisonment for life. - and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which rnay extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine: if punishable with lesr thrn ten years' imprisonment. - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine. or with both. S. 294 IPC - Obscene ects and songs. - Whoever, to the annoyance ofothers - (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utlers any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be prmished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine. or with both. S. ,163 IPC - Forgery. - [Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or pan of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injuryl, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to €nter 251 into any exprcss or implied contract" or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. S. 4Al IPC - Meking a false document- - [A person is said to make a false document or false elechonic First - Who dishonesdv or fraudulently - (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a docnment or part ofa document; (b) makes or transmits any electonic record or part of any electronic record; @ affixes any [electronic signaturc] on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity ofthe [electronic signature] with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, elechonic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affxed by or by the authority or a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed seald executed or affixed; or Secondly - Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly, or fraudulently, by cancellation or other- wise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with lelectronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteratioq or Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any pe$on to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsormdness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents ofthe document electronic record or the na0re ofthe alteration. 252 S,469 IPC - Forgery for purpose of harming reputation' - Whoever commits forgery, [intending that the document or electronic reeord forged]shall hann the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shalt be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. S. 470 IPC - Forged [document or electronic recordl' - A is false [document or electronic record] made wholly or in part by forgery designated " a forged [document or electronic record]". S. 47f IPC - Usitrg as genuine a forged [dctument or electronic recordl. - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same mamer as if he had forged such [document or electronic recordl." In short, CWI to CW l0 who are connected with the Mangalam Television channel should be investigated for the offences punishable under sections 109, 1208, 201,294, 463, 464, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It has come out from the evidence of CW I and CW 2l alild CW 22 that CW I lodged a false complaint with the Museum Police Station that his bag containing laptop and phone were stolen from his car in the night of 03-04.2017 - Police resistered crime No. 549/17 under section 379 ofthe Kocl.: ?0 ul 253 Indian Penal Code and duly investigated the case. It was found that it was a false case and Sub Inspector ofpolice, Museum police Station filed a refer report before the Judicial I Class Magistrate Coun _ I, Trivandrum. The police had to question several persons causing annoyance to them. Therefore, CW I R. Ajithkumar has prima facie committed the offence punishable under section l g2 of the Indian penal Code. ln short, CW I R. Ajithkumar is liable to be prosecuted separately for the offence punishable under section 182 ofthe Indian penal Code. 12.4.7 Thelegal action to be taken in this regard. For the violations of the Constitutional provisions, violation of Programme Code, violations of Code of practice, discussed in 12.4.?, 12.4.3, 12.4.4 a6ove, the appropriate authority to take legal action is the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and NBA respectively. It has come out in inquiry that on the basis of the complaints received against the violations by Mangalam Television channel due to the telecast ofthe voice clipping, EMMC under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting opened a file for necessary action as can be seen from the Annexure - ll report. But as the Mangalam Television channel telecast the Annexure - Ill apology, no funher action seemed to be taken by the Ministry and the matter was filed. But now it has come out in inquiry that CW I R. Ajithkumar, C.E.O. of Mangalam Television channel denied the material portions of the apology and thereby in fact retracted from the Annexure -lll apology. Therefore the Mangalam Television 254 channel and the company which owns the channel should be proceeded against the various violations. The Govemment may forward a copy of this report to the Secretary' a Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govemment of India with a recommendation to reopen the file against the Mangalam Television channel for appropriate action including cancelling its broadcasting licence or the permission to run the visual channel. It has come out in inquiry that the Mangalam Television channel is functioning without any self-regulation or peer supervision. CWl9 the Secretary, Kerala Television Federation has filed affidavit before the Commission that the Mangalam Television channel is not a member of their Federation. CW 20 Secretary, Press Councii of India has filed affidavit that the PCI has no control over the electronic media. Inquiry by this Commission has also revealed that the Mangalam Television channel is not a member of the NBA. As per the News Broadcasting Standads Regulations, the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), the independent self-regulatory mechanism set up by the NBA looks into complaints only relating to the content shown by the member channels of NBA. NBSA has informed this Commission that the said Authority could not take any action on the complaints received from various persons and NWMI, Kerala as the Mangalam News Channel is not a member of the NBA and advised the various persons who sent complaints against the telecasl of the voice clipping to approach Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. l'he above state of affairs should also be brought to the notice of Ministry of lnform4[ Broadcasting. Kochi-30 IJJ For the offences committed under the various sections of I.T. Act, 2000 and l.P.C., 1860, the investigation has to be expedited and after completing investigation the Mangalam Television channel and the persons behind the making and telecast of the voice clipping should be prosecuted before the Competent Court. This Commission has given detailed recommendations and the action to be taken against the Mangalam Television channel in the Chapter on recommendations below. 12.4.8 Conclusion on terms of reference No. (iv) ln the result, the conclusion of this Commission on terms of reference No. (iv) "to inquire into as to whether the act of airing the voice chpprng is illegal and involves illegal activities or conspiracies and if so, the legal action to be taken in this resard" is as follows:- The act of airing the voice clipping was the culmination of a wetl planned criminal conspiracy and therefore is illegal and it involved illegal activities including - Violations ofthe provisions ofthe Constitution under Article l9(2), 2l and 5l-A(e). - Violation ofthe Programme Code prescribed under Rules 6(l)(a), 6(l)(d), 6(1)(o) and 6 (5) prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. - Violation ofnorms ofjournalistic conduct of PCI and Code of Practice adopted by News Broadcrsters Association forself-regulation. ., 256 Offences punishable under section 67 and 67 A' 84 B and 85 of the I.T. Act' 2lX[. Offences committed under vsrious sections of IPC punishable under sections 109, l2O B,'201,294,463' 464.469.47O rnd 471 oftheIPC' 1860. Offences punishable under section 182 of the IPC against CWI R. Ajithkumar. The legal action to be taken in this regard are as follows: l) the Government may foward r copy of this Report to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India with a recommendation to reop€n the complaint file against the Mangalam Television channel for appropriate action including cancelling its broadcasting licence or perrnission to run the visual channel. 2) The absence of self-regulation in the manag€ment of Mangalam Television channel and non-membership in the NBA by Mangalam Television channel should also be brought to the notico of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 3) The Mangalam Television channel and the persons behind the making and telecasl of the voicc ciipping shaii be prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 67,67A,U B and 85 of l.T. Act, 2000 and under Sections 109, f20 B, 201,294,463, 464,469,470 and 471 ofthe IPC before the competent Court 257 after expediting the investigation on the basis of the two crimes already registered. 4) CW t R. Ajithkumar is liable to be prosecuted separately for offence punisheble under section tE2 of the lndian penal Code. 5) More recommendations for the consideration of the GovernmcDt and action to b€ taken on the basis of the finding on other matters conn€cted with this case as the Commission observes which will be discussed in part III of this report. I "l *,iiiflg$ffipspn: PART II THE INQUIRY AND CONCLUSIONS ON TERMS OF R.EFERENCE NOS. 1 TO 4 67-lA ilxocrn-3o lrl R}-_-(g REPORT ON THE rNQUtRy INTO THE VERACTTY OF TEE VOICE CLIPPING SAID To BE THAT OF A MINISTER OF THE STATE TELECAST BY MANGALAM TELEYISION CIIANNEL ON 26.0}2017 AND OTHER COI{NECTED MATTERS BY THE COMMISSION OF' INQUIRY JUDGE P.S. ANTONY DrsTRrcT JUDGE (RETD.) & FORMER JUDGE. FAI\4ILY COURT SECRETARY A.G.VISWAMBHARAN vo|, - tI (Chapte6 13 to End ) PART III INQUIRY INTO THE OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE AS THE COMMISSION HAS OBSERVED & CONCLUSION ON TERMS OF REFERENCE No. (v) tl: I l' ,, I 259 CHAPTER 13 The Issues Involved as Observed by the Conrrnission l3.l Introduction The veracity of the voice clipping said to be that ofa Minister of t}e State telecast by Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 is formd to be not proved and is found to be the product of a criminal conspiracy and forgery. As the voice clipping was attributed to former Minister for Transport A.K. Saseendran, he resigned on the same day. It is found that the circumstances that led to the telecast of the voice clipping by the Mangalam Television Channel was the ambition of the Mangalam Television Channel management to race ahead of other channels in rating on the date of it's inauguration itself and aonty for the purlnse of commercial interest and no public interest is involved in it" as stated by NWMI, Kerala in the complaint sent to Ministry of lnformation & Broadcasting against the violation by Mangalarn News Channel. It is also found that the recorded conversation was edited or tampered with mala fide intentions by the management and some of the joumaliss of the Mangalam Television Channel. It is also found that the Mangalam Television Channel flouted the provisions of the Constitution and various laws and violated Norrns of Joumalistic Conduct and Code of Practice adopted by the NBA for self- regulation. In the making ofthe voice clipprng said to be rhat of a 260 offences punishable Minister of the State and its telecast serious Technology Act' 2000 under the various provisions of lnformation committed' and Indian Penal Code, 1860 are too Television Channel 13.2 Complaints agrinst Mrngslam the telecast of voice There was widespread condemnation against a man and a woman' where the clipping containing sexual chats between femalesoundiSeditedoutwithoutregardtoanySenseofdecencyand a wide spectrum of people morality. ln addition to the Protest from leaders as already including joumaliss, intellectuals and cultural discussedinPartllofthereport,variouscomplaintsweresenttothe citizens and NWMI' Ministry of Information & Broadcasting by can be examined' Kerala. ln this contexl, some of the complaints Pradeep K'P', Advocate' High Court ofKerala: I ) The complaint of Dr. " Complaint on violation of progra'mme cooe' Channel intrudes the When the "news" broadcasted by an Indian public servant in the State' privacy of a person, that too of a prominent to protect the moral balancing is it not the duty of the citizen ofthe State doing so' and interest of the public servant' I hope I am - tJ 26l 'iha[ is wrong when a privair perwn harl chat wi0r a persrrr r.rf opposite sex, may be with indication of sex or ev€n vulgar sex, if the both parties are under consensual mind and also neither of the party has any complaint? What is the rolc of mcdia to cxposc thc scx chat of both the parties in front of the public, that too before a large public who are the viewers of the particular channel? Apart from the act of moral policing by the visual charmel, is it not a case of unethical practice by the visual channel- As per the information contains in www.manqalam-tv. the Mangalam Television is a converged media in Malayalam with latest cutting edge technology in digital platform. Staffed 24 hours, seven days a week the largest network of correspondents in Kerala, the southemmost state of Indi4 Mangalam Television focuses unbiased and independent news coverage. lt also states that Mangalam Television features the latest multimedia technologies, from live video streaming to audio packages to searchable archives of news features and background information. It also gives the corespondence address as Mangalam Television, PB No. 1 18, Aristo Junction, Trivandrum - 695001. Kerala India The said T V channel assures, any compliant relating to content of tv channel, Mangalam Television, under the code of practice and broadcasting standards and news broadcasting standards (disputes zoL redressal), regulations of news broadcasting association (NBA) shall be made by a person aggrieved within a reasonable time not exceeding seven days from the date of first broadcast to thc following pcrson appointed by the company whose details are reproduced below' R. Ajithkumar Mangalam Television Aristo Junction, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram Pin - 695036. Kerala. India Here is my complaint. The said channel, on 76.03.2017 has aired a news item with sound contents ofan alleged telephone chat of Mr' A.K. Saseendran, the Minister of the Govemnent of Kerala and a lady, who is even unknown, and the contents in the above verbal chats contains indications of sex and of course, may amounts to a criminal offence under Section 3544. of the India Penal Code, if the lady involved in the said chat has any complains and objections. However, there is no indication of any objection or complaint in this regard, from the side of the victim and it can only be assumed that it is a consented interaction. Even there is no scope for any complaint on offending privileges, which are protected under the Information Technology Act, 2000 to make the said phone chat as a criminal offence, in the absence ofa complaint from the lady. However, the said verbal chat with two private persons are published and aired with a caption that the verbal indecency of the Minister was against a complainant who approached him for making a complaint against state inaction. However there is no indication in this regard to e that the said lady has called the Minister for making any *"i^-----.-.nY 263 complaini or for any favourable action in any matters of state actions. ..of So the news aired is nothing but false news inducing a complainant". 'l'he act committed by the above channel or broadcaster is nothing but an offence under section 67 and 674 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, rather than a libellous act, against private remedy is available under Indian Law. Airing obscene contents, either in the mode of images or in the mode of words, is notiing but an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code also. So the act of the broadcaster is a criminal offence too. Apart from these, the act, which referred above is nothing but a violation of programme code formulated under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. Rule 6 of the said rules, denotes on programme code, which are to be mandatorily complied by the broadcasters. The programme code refers to following ethical mandates. Rule 6. Programme Code (l) No programme should be carried in the cable service which :- (a) Offends against good taste or decency; (d) Contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths; (i) Criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral life ofthe country: tl I 264 So the facts stat€d above violates the prograrnme code' a statutory regulations issued by the Central Govemment and it is just and necessary to take action against tle above referred Mangalam TV, by cancelling its broadcasting license or the permission to nm the visual channel". 2) The complaint ofone Kurian Benny sent by e-mail: *On 26'h March 2017 Mangalam news channel (Malayalam) has published an exclusive audio clip against Kerala Transport Minister The clip is adult only. They broadcast it without any censor' It's a news channel and all members in our family watch it together please take necessary action against the channel' The news may be true or it can be a fake but they need to control their conGnt which is shown by a thousand of school children". 3) The complaint ofone Saiju Menon sent by e-mail: "Mangalam Malayalam Channel has exposed a talk between one MLA Saseendran with a lady. Channel has telecasted complete sexual talk in front ofchild and ladies. As a tax payer it's my right to know that who gave the permission to telecast such sexual voice clips. Why broadcast autiority IS silent on such issues? These kind of programme can not watch ln front of family members. Channel should be banned". 4) The complaint by NWMI, Kerala zo) A detailed complaint was sent by Nrrly'Ml, Kerala subscribed by 136 of joumalists the women of Kerala led by M. Sarita Varma, Senior Assistant Editor, The Financial Express. as follows:_ " At I I a.m. on 26' March, 201,7, the Mangalam News Channel in Malayalam language has telecasted a news programme along with an audio clipping claimed to be of one Mr. Saseendran, the then MinNter of Kerala State, containing sexual, obscene and explicit pomographic content. The entire news programme was based on this audio ape which was repeatedly telecasted on that day, several times stating that the pomographic, obscene and sexual content in the audio was made by Mr. Saseendran to a housewife who approached the minister for help. While telecasted the said audio for the second time between I t a.m. and 11.30 a.m. the programme presenter wamed the viewers to keep the children away from television reach, as it contains adults only content. While telecasting the said sexual content, even one of the woman guests who were present at the studio, namely Mrs. Dhanya Raman, a social activist, had closed her eyes and ears, as the content b€ing indecent, obscene, defamatory and unbearable to be heard in a oublic sDace. The audio tape was containing sexual chats between a man and woman, where the sound of the woman was removed by editing, it seems. At the time it was aired first, i.e. I I a.m. on 26ft March, there was no statutory waming to keep the children away. They added a waming only when it was aired for the second time between I I.00 a.m. and 266 to such an 11.30 a.m. on the same day. Several children were exposed and I 1 30 obscene content which was aired in day time between I I a'm' and a.m. This happened only because of the utter irresponsibility 6 of illegality commined by Mangalam television in violation of Rule as the CTN Rules. Such broadcast was done by the Mangalam Channel no part of their launch, only for the purpose of commercial interest and public interest is involved in it. When the news became a hot debarc, the C'E'O' of Mangalam channel Shri R. Ajithkumar claimed that this audio was given by a helpless housewife victimized by the sexual atrocities of Mr' Saseendran' the on the minister. The State of Kerala has announced a judicial enquiry against lhe news issue and State Police has registered a criminal case three channel authorities- Though it was initially claimed so, after days, the Channel CEO Mr. Ajithkumar has come up with a declaration that the said audio was recorded by one of the staff of Mangalam Channel as a sting operation, and sought rmconditional apology for giving misleading news. It is further confirmed that such a highly indecent, obscene audio content was edited and manipulated version of the original audio, a forged one only for the purpose of inviting public attention to the newly launched news channel' It is reliably known that the Kerala Police has registered a case against the C.E.O,, Reporter and other persons worked behind such an illegal telecast, under section 67 A of I.T. Act along with Section 120 B ofthe Indian penal Code, and the investigation is going on (Ps: CBCID' District, Thiruvananthapuram, Crime No.52ICR/OCW l/TVIvt)' It is now an admitted fact that the Mangalam Channel has purposefully Jl,) ,i - 267 violated Rule 6 of the CIN Rules, and facing serious prosecution under 67 A of I.T. Act for using electronic information knowing to be false, but for the purpose of crcating {umoyance, insult and injury- As women aggrievd, we request your good self to conduct a fair and sincere enquiry into the above mentioned matter and take strict, appropriate penal action against the Mangatam Television Channel for the above mentioned violation, so that such serious violations should not be repeated in future. We also request you to take appropriate steps to suspend the broadcasting license of Mangalam channel at least for 7 days, as a model punishable for all violators. We do hereby put a copy to the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre. Soochana Bhavan, New Delhi". 13.3 Whrt ir the rction taken? From the above complaints from a wide spectrum of the people of Kerala, it can be seen that the Mangalam Television Channel committed serious illegality and indulged in criminal activities flouting all norms of joumalistic conduct and Code of Practice applicable to electronic media. In spite of such serious illegality in the telecast of the voice clipping and criminal mtivities committed by the Mangalam Television Channel giving a complete go-by to all canons ofethics, absolutely no penal action is taken by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. On a mere tendering of the apology by CWI C.E.O. of Mangalam Television Charurel which was telecast on 30.03.2017, the file was closed without any action - without even issuing notice to the Mangalam Television Channel and without even informing the complainants, at the level ofJoint Secretary. 268 13.4 Withdrawet by NWMI, Kereh. lhe subsequ€nt action by NW'MI, Kerala is more intriguing' Aftcr sending the above extracted complaint to Ministry of Information & Broadcasting on 03.04.2017, they withdrew the complaint on 04.04.2017 on the ground that they 'have decided to approach the NBA with our petition instead". On 12.04.2017 NWMI, Kerala sent the complaint to NBA by e-mail' NBSA responded on the same day as follows:- "NBSA would like to inform you that as per the News Broadcasting Standards Regulations, the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), the independent self-regulatory mechanism set up the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) looks into complaints only relating to the content shown by the member channels of the NBA. On l0-04-201? at 14-00 hrs-, NBA received a complaint by e-mail only from Network of Women in Media (NWMI), Kerala regarding violations of Mangalam news channel. NBSA replied to (NWMI) by e-mail only dated 10.04.2017 at 14.41 hrs., that Mangalam News Channel is not a member of NBA. Hence, NBSA cannol take action on the complaint. NWMI may wdte to the Ministry of lnformation & Broadcasting (MoI&B). In the l€tter, itself we gave the details of the Joint Secretary (Broadcasting) and the Director in the Ministry of lnfbrmation & Broadcasting with whom they should communicate and were 269 marked/copied in the mail itself- With this action, the complaint was closed by NBSA". It appears that the NWMI, Kerala did not take any action thereafter. This Commission sought to know the action taken by them in the matter. But there was no resDonse. It is already discussed in Chapter 8.4 above, the failure of CWl6 Geetha Nazir, who is one of the signatories in the representation given by NWMI, Kerala to the Chief Minister on 29.03.2017, to appear before the Commission or to file an affidavit or even a statement in reply to the notice and summons issued by the Commission. The question lingers, why did the NWMI, Kerala became quiet after the vociferous protests in the beginning and the representation and complaint? Or who silenced them ?! 13.5 The issrres that erise for consideration from the conduct ofthe Mangalam Television Channel The scope of Inquiry by this Commission also includes other matters connected with this case as the Commission observes. The Commission has considered that the followine issues are connected with this case:- 270 -invasion of Right to privacy of citizens; -the extent of fieedom of Media as a whole; -questions of joumalistic ethics and protbssional standards; and -measu.res to Prevent the misuse of the Mom of media' The consideration of these issues necessitates an examination of the cunent media law and ethics which is done in the next chapter' Kochi-30 271 CHAPTER 14 Media Law & Ethics at Present 14.1 Introduction Media includes the prcss - news papers and other;rriodicals, mdio and television. They are the means of mass communication in modem societies. Mass media is generally classified into print and electroruc media and broadcast media. They are also the means of information, education and entertainment for the masses. Right to information, right to education and right to entertainment are fundamental social and cultural rights ofpeople ofa modem society. In his book, Mass Communication Theory, Denis Mceuail has identified the following features ofthe mass media institution: o The media institution is located in the 'public sphere', meaning especially that it is open in principle to all as receivers and senders, the media deal with public matters for public purposes - especially with issues on which public opinion can be expected to form, the media are answerable fior their activities to the wider society (accountability takes place via laws, regulations and pressure from state and society)._ 272 By virtue of their main publishing activity on behalfof members ofa society, the media are institutionally endowed with a larger degree of freedom as economic, political and cultural actors. The media institution is formally powerless (there is a logical relation between the absence of power and media freedom). Participation in the media institution is voluntary and without social obligation, ther€ is a strong association between media use and leisure time arid a dissociation from work or dutY. It is in the above context, the necessity for media law and ethics is to be considered. Media law is necessary for the enforcement ofthe rights of the people and regulate the functioning of the media institutions while media ethics is necessary for self-regulation. t 4.2 Constitutional basis of the freedom of tb€ media. Unlike in the Constitution of U.S.A. where freedom of speech is equated with freedom of press, there is no express mention of "the press" or 'media' in the Constitution of India. Freedom of media in India stems from Article 19(l) (a) which states that, 'all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression'. This is not an absolute freedom, the limitations to this freedom are stated in the Articlel9(2). Article l9(2) states that even though freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed in l9(l ) (a) it shall not affect the 273 operation of any law or prevent the State liom making any law, lnsofar as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of expression in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relarions with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation !o contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. "There are three concepts which are ftndamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights. The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the thhd is incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause how so ever unpopular is at the heart of article l9(l) (a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that article l9(2) kicks in. It is at this stage that a law may be made curtailing th€ speech or expression that leads inexorably 1o or tends to cause public disorder or tends to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, etc." Vide Shreye Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC l). ln Secretary, Ministry of Information and Bmrdcosting, Government of India and Others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others (1995) 2 (Supreme Court cases 16l) the Supreme Court has emphasised the need for reasonable restrictions under Article l9(2) of the Constitution in the national interest as well as in the interest of society. 274 14.3 Regul.tory Mechanism and Self-Regulation The necessity for a regulatory mechanism and self-regulation can be best understood fiom the following quotation of Mahatma Gandhi : "The sole aim of jownalism should be service. The newspaper press is a great poweL but just as unchained torren of wakr submerges the whole counwsidc and devastales crops, even so an uncontrolled pen serves bat to destroy. Ifthe contrcl is from *ithout, il proves more poisonous lhan wanl of control. It can be profitable only when *ercised from within". It is universally recognised that in a democratic country direct Govemment control is anathema to freedom of the media. That is why an autonomous regulatory body like the Press Council was established in India rmder the Press Council Act, 1978. The purpose of the Act was to establish a Press Council for preserving the freedom of the Press and of maintaining and improving the standards of news papen and news aqencies in India. Some of the povr'ers and functions of the Press Council are given below : p**q i(Kochi-30 )1; vx_-Kt 275 Powers and lfunclions ot'the council Section 13. Objects and functions ofthe Council (l) The objects of the Council shall be to preserve the freedom of the press and to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news acencies in India. (2) The Cormcil may, in furtherance of its objects, perform the following fu nctions, namely; (a) to help newspapers and news agencies in maintaining their independence; (b) to build up a code of conduct for newspapers, news agencies and joumalists in accordance with high professional standards; @ to ensure on the part of newspapers, news agencies and joumalists, the maintenance of high standards of public taste and promote a due sense of both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, (d) to encourage the growth of a sense of responsibility and public service among all those engaged in the profession of joumalism; (e) to keep under review any development likely to restrict the supply and dissemination of news of public interest and importance, (f) to keep under review cases of assistance received by any newspaper or news agency in India from any J;L 276 foreign source including such cases as are retbred to it by the Central Govemment or are brought to its notice by an individual, association of persons or any other organ ization. (d to undertake studies of foreign newspapers, including those brought out by any embassy or other representative in India of a foreign State, their circulation and impact. (h) to promote a proper functional relationship among all classes of persons engaged in the production or publication of newspa;rrs or in news agencies. (i) to concem itself with developments such as concentration of or other aspects of ownership of newspapers and news agencies which may affect the independence of the Press. O to undertake such studies as may be entrusted to the Council and to express its opinion in regard in any matter referred to it by the Central Govemment. (k) to do such other acts as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge ofthe above functions .. Section 14. Power to Censure The Council may conduct an inquiry with the newspaper, or news agency, the editor or joumalist - on the receipt of a complaint or otherwise- ifthe Council has reason to believe that they have offended against the standards of joumalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or working joumalist has committed any professional ril ?7-i mtsconduct. lt.the Council is satistied that it is necessary to do so, it may, for reasons to be recorded in wfiting, wam, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or thejoumalist or disapprove the conduct ofthe editor or the joumaiist. At the same time, the Council may not take cognizance of a complaint if in the opinion of the Chairman, there is no sufficient ground for holding an inquiry. tf the Council is of the opinion that it is needed in public interest to do so, it may require any newspaper to publish any particulars relating to any inquiry under section agarnsr the newspaper or news agency, an editor or a joumalist working therein, including the name of such newspaper, news agency, editor joumalist. or In the above two instances, the decision of the Council shall be final and notbe questioned in a court of law. At the same time, the Council is not empowered to hold an inquiry into any matter the proceeding of which is pending in a court of law. Section 15. General powers of the Council (l) For the purpose of performing its functions or holding any inquiry under this Act, the Council shall have the same powers throughout India as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following maners, namelv: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath; i bIKochi-3u/ri )78 (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; @ receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof tlom anY court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; and (f) any other matter. which may be prescribed (2) Nothing in sub-section (l) shall be deemed to comPel any newspaper, news agency, editor or joumalist to disclose the source of any news or information. (3) Every inquiry held by the Council shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the lndian Penal Code. (4) The Council may, if it considers it necessary for the purpose of carrying out its objects or for the performance of any of its functions under this Act, make observations in any of its decisions or reports, regarding the conduct of any authority, including Govemment. Section 26. Power of the Council to make regulations The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make resulations not inconsistent with this Act- In reply to the summons issued to the Secretary, Press Council of lndia as a witness in terms of Rule 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 seeking views of the Council by way of an ! I 279 aflidavit on the issue of rights and privacy vis-d-vis press freedom on model ethics and professional standards of joumalism, it is stated in the affidavit that it has nojurisdiction over electronic media. It is also stated in the afiidavit that the Press Council in keeping with its mandate has built on case to case basis a Code of Joumalistic Ethics as per Section 13 (l) (b) of the Press Council Act, 1978 for rhe print media contained in the booklef "Norms of Joumalistic Conduct - Edition 2010." It is further stated in the affidavit, "Relevant norms & guidelines framed by the Press Council of India in regard to the views raised by the Hon'ble Commission are quoted as below along with adjudications and copy thereof are also annexed to this affidavit for ready reference of this Hon'ble Commission. Norm No.7: Privacy ofPublic Figures (i) Right to privacy is an inviolable human right. However, the degree of privacy differs from person to person and from situation to situalion. The public person who functions under the public gaze as an emissary/representative of the public cannot expect to be afforded the same degree of privacy as a private person. His acts and conduct are of public interest ('public interest' being distinct and separate from 'of interest to public') even if conducted in private may be brought to public knowledge through Jto' 280 the medium of the press- The press has however, a conesponding duty to ensure that the information about such acts and.conduct of public interest of the public person is obtained through fair means, if properly verified and then reported accurately. For obtaining information in respect of acts done or conducted away from public gaze, the press is not expected to use surveillance devices. For obtaining information about private talks and discussion while the press is expected not to badger the public persons, the public persons are also expected to bring more openness in their functioning and co-operate with the press in its duty of informing the public about the acts of their representatives. (ii) The interviews/articles or arguments pertaining to public persons which border on events that are in public knowledge, if reported correctly, cannot be terrned as intrusion into private life. There is a very thin line between public and private life and public persons should not be too thick skinned to criticism. (iii) Newspapers are allowed latitude in criticising persons who are in seats of power because their conduct discloses public interest provided their criticism is not motivated to gratiry private spite of opponent/rival ofpublic figure. (iv) The family of public figures are not valid joumalistic subject, more so if its reporting covers the minors. If "public interest" overrides the minor's right to privacy it will be proper to seek prior consent ofthe parents. (v) When the individual concemed himself or herself reveals facts about private life before a large gathering then the shield of ,- . :{t .N)rivacy should be deemed to be abandoned by the individual. i:?/ ). 'irit ,1, ,;1. rst . ' \., f 1' , ,'' 281 Norm No. 8: Recording Interviews and Phone Conversation (i) The Press shall not tape-record anyone's conversation without that person's knowledge or consent except where the recording is necessary to protect the joumalist in a legal action, or for other compelling good reasons. ( ii) The Press shall, prior to publicltion, delete offensive epithets used during such conversation. Norm No. 4l(B) : Guidelines on Sting Operations (i) A newspaper proposing to report a sting operation shall obtain a certificate from the person who recorded or produced the same cerdrying that the operation is genuine and bonajide- (ii) There must be concurrent record in writing of the various stages ofthe sting operation. (iii) Decision to report the sting operation should be raken by the editor after satisfoing himself of the public interest of the matter and ensuring that report complies with all legal requirements. (iv) Sting operation published in print media should be scheduled with an awareness of the likely reader in mind. Great care and sensitivity should be exercised to avoid shocking or offending the reader". Thus it is seen that there is a specific law and a statrtory body for maintaining and improving the standards of the print media and news agencies in lndia. 242 14.3.1 Inadequate law and strtutory body lo regulate private electronic media/broadcastmedia In India, radio broadcasting (All India Radio) started in the year 1936 and television broadcasting (Doordarshan) was introduced in the year 1959. For a long time, broadcasting in lndia was under the control of Govemment till Prasar Bharti (Broadcast Corporation of.lndia) Act' 1990 was enacted to provide autonomy to AII India Radio and Doordarshan. A change in the policy ofGovemment oflndia in the early 1990 resulted in mushrooming of private television channels. The Cable Television N€tworks (Regulation) Act was framed to regulate them. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (l) S. 22 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Ordinance, 1994 the Central Govemment has made the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. Rule 6 provides for a Programme Code. The main provisions ofthe Programme Code are as follows:- Section 6. hosramme code ( I ) No programme should be carried in the cable service which - (a) offends against good taste or decency ; (b) contains criticism offriendly countries; .Ilr. , t+tv / 283 @ contains auack on religion or communities or visuals or words cont€mptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes ; (d) contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half ruths : (e) is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote antinational attitudes. (f) contains anything amounting to contempt ofcourt. (g) contains aspersions against tl|e integrity of the President and Judiciary; (h) contains anything affecting the integdty of the Nation; (i) criticise, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments ofsocial, public and moral life ofthe country; O encourages superstition or blind belief; (k) denigrates wornen thmugh the depiction in any manner of the figure ofa woman, her form of body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect ofbeing indecent, or derogatory to women, or is likely in deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals ; (l) denigrates children ; (m) contains visuals or words which r€flect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal ofcertah ethnic, linguistic and 284 regional goups ; (n) conravenes the provisions of tlte Cinematograph Act,1952 (.37 of 1952\ : (o) is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition. (2) 'fhe cable operator should strive to carry programmes in his cable service which project women in a positive, leadership role of sobriety, moral and character building qualities. (3) No cable operator shall carry or include in his cable sewice any programme in respect of which copyright subsists under the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) unless he has been 6ranted a license by owners of copyright rmder that Act in respect of such programme. (4) Care should be iaken to ensure ihat programme meant for chii (5) Programmes unsuitable for children must not be carried in the cable service at times when the largest number of children are viewinq. All the powers for the enforcement of the provisions of the Act and Rules are vested in the Central Government. There is no law and statutory body like the Press Council Act, 1978 and a body like the Press Council for maintaining and improving the standards of the private broadcast media. f ,/l / iit I \+1'V 285 It is already seen in Chapter 13 above tlat the Ministry of Inforrnation and Broadcasting, Covemment of India is not serious in enforcing the hogramme Code- The complaints filed against the Mangalam Television Channel which violated many provisions of the programme Code by the telecast of the voice clipping, which in the words of ,.contains EMMC, is 'trime-worthy and distasteful", explicit words that are sexual in nature and verbal description of sexual acts, which was repeatedly telecast throughout the day'' - were closed on the mere tendering of an apology on 30.03.2017 by the C.E.O of Mangalam Television Channel, without issuing even a show cause notice. The complainants arc not even informed about the closure ofthe file. In its letler dated 14.09.2017, the Ministry of lnformation and Broadcasting, Govemment of lndia has informed this Commission that in so far as specific cases of violation or otherwise of the Progranune & Advertising Codcs axe concemed, lho mailer ls disposed of without issuing show cause notice (SCN) at the level of Joint Secretary. As such Joint Secretary has the authority to decide what action needs to be taken against Television Channels in such cases. In the present case it was approved at the level of Joint Secretary (B-l) that since Mangalam Television Channel had already telecast the apology on 30.03.2017, no further action seemed to be taken by the Ministry. It is also informed that 'the Ministry has constituted a Composite Int€r Ministerial Committee (MC) comprising officers from Ministries of Home affairs, Defence, Extemal Afiairs, Law, Women & Child Development, Health & Family Welfare, Consumer Affairs ( 'llt' YTM2r 2a6 to and a representative fiom Advertising Sbndards Council of India' take cognizance suo moto or to look into specific complaints platfomt regarding content on private Television Channels on any capacity' including FM Radio. The IMC frmctions in a recommendatory The final decision regarding penalties and its quantum against of Television channels is taken on the basis of the recommendations IMC. In view of the telecast of apology on 30'03'2017 by Mangalam Television Channel C.E.O. R. Ajithkumar it was decided that no further action seemed to be taken by tre Ministry' Hence the matter was not referred to IMC". The above state of affairs shows that there is no effective law and machinery at the level of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting' Govemment of lndia to discipline the erring private electronic media unlike in the case of print media where the Press Council has Pow€r to censure under section 14 ofthe Press Council Act' 14.3.2 Self-Regulation by privete electronic media' The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) of India has adopted a Code of Practice for self-regulation and published in August 2008' The Code of Practice is given in Annexure - X. In reply to the letter issued by this Commission, the NBA has informed as Per letter dated 22.A9.2017 that it has set up News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), the independent self-regulatory mechanism to 287 look into complaints relating to the content shown by the member channels ofthe NBA. It is informed that as Mangalam News Channel is not a member of NBA, NBSA cannot take action on the comnlaint. The above reply of the NBA shows that membership of NBA is not mandatory for the functioning of a private News channel. In effect there is no effective law or mechanism to control the private electronic media. 14.4 Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2fi)6. The above Bill is pending with the Parliament. The objectives ofthe Bill are as follows:- To promote, facilitate and develop in an orderly manner the carriage and content of broadcasting. To provide for regulation of broadcasting services in India for offering a variety of entertainment, news, views and information in a fair, objective and competitive manner and to provide for regulation of content for public viewing and connected therewith or incidental thereto. To provide for the establishment of an indeoendent authoritv to be known as the Broadcast 288 Regulatory Authority of India for the purpose of regulating and facilitating development of Broadcasting Services in tndia. Whereas airwaves are public property and it is lek necessary to regulate the use of such airu,aves in national and public interest, particularly with a view to ensuring proper dissemination of content and in the widest possible manner : Whereas Govemment has issued guidelines from tirne to time, with the approval of the Union Cabinet, for regulating the Broadcasting Services and it is felt necessary to give a statutory effect in these guidelines with retrospective effect. Atz--x.a f(*""nutofi v.,\-__xg 289 CHAPTER 15 Need for Enactment of Law for Regulating private Electronic Media and Machinery for Enforcement of Ethical Standards l5.l Introduction The various violations of Law and Rules of self-regulation involved in the telecast of the voice clipping on 26.03.2017 by the Mangalam Tefevision Channel has already been discussed in Chapter lZ.2 above and the lack of necessary law and machinery to regulate private electronic media has been discussed in Chapter - l4 above. In his prophetic work, "Understanding Media" on the influence of media in the modern world written in 1964 by Marsball Mc|-uhan, it is stated that "as electrically contracted, the globe is no more than a village" and "medium is the message". Contrasling Radio and Television, Mcluhan observed: "Radio will serve as background - sound or as noise-level control, as when the ingenious teenager employs it as a means of privacy. Television will not work as background. lt engages you. You have to be with it". This shows the extent of influence of Television in the daily lives of the people. In a study conducted by David Walsh, a renowned psychologist, it was found that while a child watches Television for 1680 minutes a, iLil 290 week parents watch it only for 38 minutes. It was also found that while a child spends, 30 hours a week in school, he is spending 32 hours for Television, Video and Intemet. It is now a common knowledge that women and children spend most of their time at home before the Television and for social media. Such a media. if left unregulated would create anarchy in the society. 15.2 Inadequacy of the present law and directions by the Supreme Court, The necessity for a specific law goveming the broadcast media was stressed by the Supreme Court in (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 16l which is already referred to above. The Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 200 of the judgment as follows:- " 200. Now, coming to the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, a look at its scheme and provisions would disclose that it was meant for a different purpose altogether. When it was enacted, there was neither radio nor, of course, television, though it may be that radio or television fall within the I j-'J' 11. 291 has not been specifically challenged before us, we decline to express any opinion theleon. The situation is undoubtedly unsatisfactory. This is the result of the legislation in this cormtry not keeping pace with the technological developments. While all the democracies in the world have enacted laws specifically goveming the broadcasting media, this country has lagged behind, rooted in the Telegraph Act of 1885 which is wholly inadequate and unsuited io an important medium like radio and television, i.e., broadcasting media. It is absolutely essential, in the interests of public, in the interests of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article I 9 ( I ) (a) and with a view to avoid confusion, unceriainty and consequent litigation that Parliament steps in soon io fili the voici by enaciing a iaw or iaws, as the case may be, governing the broadcasting media, i.e., both radio and television media. The question whether to permit private broadcasting or not is a matter of policy for Parliament to decide. If it decides to permit it, it is for Parliament to decide, subject to what conditions and restriclions should it be permitted. (This aspect has been dedt with supra.) The fact remains that private broadcasting, even if allowed, should not be left to market forces. in the interest of ensuring that a wide variety of voices enjoy access to it". 292 In (20f1) 13 Supnemc Court Crses 155 referred to above, the Suorerne Court observed as follows:- " 'fhe medi4 be it electronic or print media' is generally called the fourth pillar of democracy. The media, in all its forms, whether electronic or print, discharges a very onerous duty of keeping the PeoPle knowledgeable and informed. The impact of media is far-reaching as it reaches not only the people physically but also influences them mentally. It cr€ates opinions, broadcasts different points of view, brings to the fore wrongs and lapses of the Govemment and all other goveming bodies and is an imPortant tool in restraining comrption and other ill-effects of society. The media ensures that the individual actively participates in the decision making Proc€ss. The right to information is fundamental in encouraging the individual to be a part of the goveming process. The enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the most empowering step in this direction. Tbe role of people in a democracy and that of active debate is essential for the functioning of a vibrant democracy. With this imrnense power, comes the burden of responsibility. With the huge amount of information that they process, it is the responsibility of the media to ensure that they are not providing the public with information that is factually wrong, biased or simply _ , ,t' 4 t, \---rL]--.: :!. \,t 293 unverified information. The right to freedom of speech is enshrined in Article l9(l) (a) of the Constitution. However, this right is restricted by Article (19) (2) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency and morality and also Contempt of Coure Act and defamation. The unbridled power of the media can become dangerous if checks and balances are not inherent in it The role of the media is to provide to the readers and the public in general with information and views tested and found as true and correct. This power must be carefully regulated and must reconcile with a person's fundamental rightto privacy. Any \ rrong or biased information that is put lbrth can potentially damage the otherwise clean and good reputation of the pelsoii or insii-rutiorr againsi whoil somefhing adverse is reported. Pre-judging the issues and rushing to conclusions must be avoided". 15.3 Need for change in Licensing Policy The function of the media is to inform, to educate and to provide entertainment to the viewers. Media can function only as a business/industry. Basically objective information is the product of the media business. The license given to a news charmel is to sell accurate andtrue news. No Iicense is given to sell a false information. Justlike ' a hotel which is not given a license to sell adulterated, poisonous and 294 putrid food items, a media house/news channel has no licence to sell half-tnrths and false news. Article While exercising the freedom of speech and expression under is subject to l9( I ) (a) of fte Constitution' the exercise of that fteedom the reasonable restrictions laid down under Article l9(2) of the Constitution, namely, i) the sovereignry and integrity of lndia' ii) the security ofthe State, iii) friendly relations with foreign States' iv) public order, v) decencY or moralitY or vi) in relation to contempt of Court, vii) defamation, or viii) incitement to an offence ln short, a new programme or any other programme published or telecast/broadcast should not be against the inler€st of the State and of the society. A false news will create problems in the society and anarchy in public admin istration. In the landmark judgnent in (199t 2 SCC 161 referred to above' it was held that airwaves constitute public property which must be utilised for advancing public good. In paragraph 192 of the judgrnent the Supreme Court held as follows: 295 " I92. Tbe Importance rnd Signilicance of Television in the Modern World needs no emphasise. Most people obtain thc bulk of their Information on matters of contemporary interests from the broadcasting medium. The television is unique in the way in which it intnides into our homes . The combination of picture and voice makes it an irresistibly attractive medium of presentation. Call it idior box or by any other pejorative name, it has a tremendous appeal and influence over millions of people. Many of them are glued to it for hours on end each day. Television is shaping the food habis, cultural values, social mores and what not ol the society in a manner no other medium has done so far. younger generation is particularly addicted to it. It is a powerful instrument, which can be used for greater good as also for doing immense harm to the society. It depends upon how it is used. With the advance of technology, the number of channels available has grown enormously. National boarders have become meaningless. The reach some of of the major networks is intemational; they are not confined to one country or one region. It is no longer possible for any govemment to control or manipulate the news, views and informatron available to its people. ln a manner of speaking, the technological revolution is forcing internationalism upon the world. No nation can remain a fortress or an island in itself any longer. Without a doubt, the technological revolution is presenting new issues, complex in nature .tomplex - in the words of Burger, C.J problems with many hard questions and few easy answerd'. Broadcasting media by its very nature is different from press. Airwaves are public property. The fact that a large number of fiequencies/channels are available does not make thern anytheless public property. It is the obligation of tbe I ..Ltt" 296 State under our constitutional system to ensure that lhey are used for public good". As seen from the case of Mangalam Television Channel it is easy to invest money in media and create anarchy in the country through false news. ln the absence of any statutory body or self regulatory mechanism for the audio visual media, the private electronic media is proving to be capable of causing hovoc as well as mischief as opined by Dr. Sebastian Paul. In the casc of Mangalam Television Channel the telecast of the voice clipping on 26.03.2017 violated the restriction of decency or morality and public order. What would have been the result, if a telecast was made against the interest of the State adversely affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign States, security of the State and public order. As India is a plural society where people speaking diverse languages and believing in different religions and held together by the idea of India which is unity in diversity, a telecast of a false news relating to communal harmony, linguistic differences or a 'son of the soil' campaign would cause serious law and order problems even affecting the national integrity. 'Ihough hundred percent foreign direct investment in media industry is allowed in India there is no adequate law for regulating the private electronic media or self regulatory mechanism in place as proved in the case of the telecast of the voice clipping by Mangalam Television Channel. Though complaints were made against the violations of the Programme Code, absolutely no aclion was taken against the ening 297 channel. Media is used by various interest groups to advance their agenda. The audio visual media market has become crowded. In their craze for breaking news in a 24 x 7 time schedule, there is a tendency to creare news and sensationalise every issue in the society for a breaking news. The Readers' Editor of the Hindu [laily, Shri A.S. panneerselvan observed as follows: "The ubiquitous 24 x 7 news channels do not understand the rigorous of serious investigative joumalism. The moment they access a sheet of paper coming from officials, they think they have unearthed a scam, and their decibel levels reach a crescendo, only to be lost following the discovery of another sheet of paper, to proclaim another exclusive expose. h 2008, Aidan Wbite wrote an excellent handbook, To Tell You The Truth, in which he laid down the ground rules for joumalism to remain a trustworthy endeavour. ..Fierce competition and a lack of regulation have created a dangerously competitive environment in which ethical and professional standards have been sidelined. In broadcasting, for instance, 40 television news channel compete for viewers in one of the world's most crowded media market, 'sting joumalism' - some might call it voyeurism and entrapment - has come to dominate the news mix," he wrote about lndian television channels. Now, with numbers ofchannels going up, the downward spiral in standards seems to be touching a new low". I _1. t 298 All the above factors indicate not only a necessity for a statutory body tbr regulating the private electronic media, but also a change in the licensing policy of the Union Govemment. Unrestricted granting of licenses to new and more news channels would create unlealthy competition resulting in a situation of 'bad money driving out the good money'. This situation calls for a change in the licensing policy of the Union G<.rvemment to limit the number of news channels in regional/vemacular languages. The policy can be on the basis of a particular State/language along with other parameters to be decided by the Govemment copsidering the interest of the State and the society under Article l9(2) ofthe Constitunon. 15.4 Towards a comprehensive law for regulating the Electronic/Broadcast medir In the book, "Law, Ethics and the Medir' by Sebastian paul. it is observed as follows: " Being a nascent media with none to guide and control, the electronic media is proving to be capable of causing havoc as well as mischief. Takine into account its tremendous reach and influence, it is high time to think of a self regulatory mechanism for the audio-visual media. The broadcasting industry, as we all know, has no equivalent of the press Council /E:1 299 though the television channels, including the govemment-owned Doordarshan and All India Radio, have never been above criticism. With more and more channels, both foreign and national, crowding our airwaves, the formation of a controlling agency has become imperative". " Legislative intervenlion is an urgent necessity because the present policy has led to grave misuse of power and blatant irresponsibility - media trials, invasions of privacy and grief, sensationalism, loss of civility and trivialization. What we see on TV channels should be deemed unpardonable in any civilized society. The exclusive footage on actor Govinda's wife and children in the hospital after a road accident followed by stodes on Aamir Khan and Karisma Kapoor show how insensitive our channels have become while reporting traumatic events in the lives of celebrities. The exploitation of the grief and humiliation of celebrities and ordinary people like Gudiya and Imrana cannot bejustified as a legitimate quest for truth The News Broadcasters Association repelled a suggestion made by PCI Chairman Markandey Katiu that the Press Council be allowed to regulate television channels as well. The suggestion was to convert the Press Council as a Media Council with suflicient teeth. Both the Editors Guild of India and \hh 300 the tndian Newspaper Society wanted the Press Council to have its brief limited to the print media. According to the Guild, the issues an drivers of the electronic media are such that they call for separate regulation Whatever be the form and manner, the need for regulating the electronic media is manifested in many ways as Ihe experiments in self-regulation, such as the News Broadcasters Association and the Broadcast Editors Association, are not working well in the mad race of television channels for profit and high TRP ratings. The Supreme Court's blunt rebuke of television channels for tleir careless and competitive feeding frenzy while covering the Mumbai 26ll I terror attack was generally welcomed as a moderate criticism. The live coverage of 26ll l, conlinuously for sixty hours, set a low in TV joumalism with the most basic of norms - objectivity, verification, dispassion - making way for a heated, overzealous and inconsiderate jumble of words and images. At times the flenzied coverage risked the lives of people trapped in the two Mumbai hotels and endangered the securify forces. The Pakistani handlers were issuing instructions to t}te terrorists on the basis of what they were watching on television". The Central Govemment must seriously consider the enactment of a comprehensive law repealing the lndian Telegraph Act, 1885, Th€ t, . J'f Kochi-30 '-. 301 Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, The Cable Televisions Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, 1997 on the model of Communications Act, 2003 of U.K. under which The Office of Communications ("OFCOM") is the regulatory body for the broadcast media. The Central Govemment shall also consider converting the Press Council as Media Council with sufficient teeth as suggesled by Justice Markandey Katju when he was the Chairman of the Press Council of lndia. This can be easily done by amending the Press Council Act, 1978 by the Parliament and renaming it as Media Council Act to cover the electronic/broadcast media. As seen in the present case when regulation by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and self-regulation by NBA is ineffective, autonomous and statutory body like Media Council with sufficient teeth - as suggested by Justice Mankandey Katju, is a must for the.purpose of preserving the freedom of the Media and of maintaining and improving the standards of both print and broadcast media and news asencies in India. + 302 CHAPTER 16 Other Matters Observed in connection with this Case 16,l lntroduction The Govemment has asked this Commission '1o inquire into the other matters connected with this case as the Commission observes". The Commission has considered that the following issues are also connected with this case! - invasion cf Right to Pri..,acy ofcitizens: - the extent of freedom of media as a whole; - questions ofjoumalistic ethics and professional standards; and - measures to prevent the misuse of the freedom of media The above issues already mentioned in Chapter 5.2 and 13.5 above and other matters which are noticed by the Commission during the course of inquiry are discussed in this Chapter. t6.2 Invasion of Right to Privacy of Citizens and Freedom of Media ln view of the importance of these issues to the media and the general public this Commission had issued notice to CWl8 Narayanan, 303 General Secretary of KUWJ, CW 19 The Secretary, Kerala Television Federation, CW 20 The Secretary, Press Council of India seeking to know their views on the above specific issues and also issued summons to file affidavits as witnesses in inquiry. CW 16 Geetha Nazir, representing NWMI, Kerala rvas also directed to file an affidavit on these issues as the witness did not file any reply to the notice issued and failed to appear as witness. The Commission also addressed the following media experts seeking ro know their views on the above issues: I ) Mr. N. Ram, Former Editor, The Hindu Daily 2) Mr. Amn Shourie, Former Editor, Indian Express Daily & Ex-Central Minister 3) Mr. Sanjay Vishnu Tambat, Asst. Professor, H.O.D, Department of Communication & Joumalism, JNU 4) Mr. Adoor Gopalakishnan, Veteran Director of lntemationally Recognized Malayalam Films 5) Mr. Sasikumar, Former Chairman, Asianet Communication 6) Mr. S. Prasannarajan, Editor, Open Magazine. 7) Dr. Sebastian Paul, Ex- M.P., Lawyer, Joumalist and Author of 'Law Ethics and the Media' 8) Secretary, Kerala Media AcademY 304 Of the above media experts only Shri Adoor Gopalakrishnan and Dr. Sebastian Paui sent their views/oDinion on the above issues. The absence of CW 16 Geetha Nazir and her failure to file statement or affidavit before the Commission is already discussed in Chapter 8.4. The conduct of NWMI, Kerala is also discussed there and in Chapter 13.3 above. 16.2.1 Statement ofCW 18 Narayanan C., General S€cr€tary, KUWJ CW 18 Narayanan has given general remarks on the issue of joumalistic ethics as a representative of the KUWJ. He has made it clear that his views are not given as approved guidelines br that his statement means that it is a rule to be followed. Sting operation in public interest is recognized by the Supreme Court. From the'l'ehelka case sting operation is used as a tool to gather news. ButCWlghasnot referred to the guidelines on sting operations in 4l(B) of Nonns of Joumalistic Conduct, 2010 Edition of pCI or to the Code of practrce adopted by NBA. He has relbrred to Privacy of public figures and the public imeresr involved. CW l8 has stated that I ) the private activities ofpublic figures which they want to keep ir as private, but afGcting the taxpaying public and though private and personal matters. the private acts done bv JU) a public figure misusing his capacity, authority, status and influence are matters ofpublic interest and the media is entitled tu infuim tlie public such private activities ofpublic figurcs. The public figures are entitled to privacy which is a Fundamental right in respect ot other private activities. The Commission is in total agreement with the views of CW l8 Narayanan in respect of his statement on the right to privacy of public figures. 16.2.2 Aflidavit of CW 19, The Secretary, KTV Federation The relevant nortion of the affidavit of CW l9 is as follows:- "With respect to the "invasion of right of privacy of citizens" the accepted trade practice is that the joumalist should not tape record anyone's conversation without his knowledge and consent except where the recording is necessary to protect rhe joumalist in any legal action or for other compelling reason. The Television industry in lndia is functioning under a Licensing regime of the Govemment of India. It is a basic condition of the License to operate a television channel that the entity functions strictly according to the Programme Code and Advertisement Code issued by the Govemment of lndia. Further, as a measure of self regulation, there is Broadcast Standards Authority functioning under the auspices ofNews Broadcasters Association which looks 'tlt' 306 lnto complaints regarding any ilem of News broadcast in a News Channel. The Advertising Standards Council of lndia oversees compliance as a self regulation measure in respect of advertisements aired in any tclcrision channel licensed by the Gorcmment of India. This is the framework with reeard to the content broadcast in a television channel. The Ministry of information and Broadcasting is the nodal Ministry of the Government of India functioning as the Licensing Authority. If the Licensing conditions are violated by any television channel, the complainant can approach either ofthe abovementioned authorities for redressal. A successful democracy is a govemment of well informed people. To achieve this end the.press is in dispensable. As regards the disputed item, while I reiterate that Kerala Television lrederation did not have a role or occasion to oversee the matter. the disDute being discussed in media was about the methods adopted by Mangalam Channel in collecting a particular item of news allegedly involving acts of moral turpitude on the part of a Minister of the Govemment of Kerala. This is a matter related to the freedom of the Press in a democratic country. The methods adopted by Press in a 'sting op€ration' can be justitied only within the framework of Law of the land. As regards ethical interpretarion of the incident, I am not competent to pass an opinion. In democracy, Press is the watchdog of I ft- 307 The people but it cannot assume the role of a bloodhound fbr purposes other than the well being of the nation. With respect to the measures to,.Drevent the misuse ol freedom of media involved and arising in the telecast of the voice clipping said to be thal ofa minister ofthe state in Mangafam Television Channel on 26.03.2017',, it may be submined that this federation was not having any knowledge as to the intention of Mangalam Television channel to publish such a matter and that Mangalam channel is not a member of the federation. We were not expected to take any preventive measures nor was we having any control over the said channel. ln these circumstances the federation is not having any responsibility in the above said telecast,'. 16.2.3 CW 20, the Press Council of India 'Ihe affidavit filed by the PCI and the views expressed is alreaoy discussed in Chapter 14.3 above. 16.2.4 Statement ofShri. Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Media Expert Shri.Adoor Gopalakrishnan has given the follo$'ing statement:- t,,-, iL \-.\ :i' *''.t..'.- __ ,i'r 308 'I in I . What the Mangalam elevision had done telecasting a part of the Minister's conversation over the phone was a clear intrusion and violation of a citizen's right to privacY. 2. The act was proven to be hideous as it tumed out to be part of an operation to trick the minister into a conversation with a woman planted by the Channel' The intention as well as the modus operandi were most fioul. 3. The media - print or electronic - should not assume a role that is not assigned to it. Its role as I understand is to report and not create sensational reports with intention mala fide. 4. 'fhe act was not in keeping with joumalistic ethics' 5. No media should enjoy unbridled, unquestioned freedom in the execution of its duty. Our Constitution should guide them in their deeds. 16.2.5 Opinion ofDr. Sebastian Paul Dr. Sebastian Paul has given the following opinion: "l am genuinely and seriously concemed with issues which joumalists face in their everyday lives from the media's supposed obsession with sex, sleaze and sensationalism to issues of regulation, controf and censorship. The telecast ofthe voice clipping by Mangalam Television on 26.03.2017 which resulted in the ignominious exit of a Mini iom the State Cabinet was highly objectionable as it cannot be ti;(KocFi-30 ,1 v''\-_--< 309 Justified on the ground of public interest. Apart fiom berng extremely indecent and immoral, the telecast was an unjustifiable invasion of fundamental right ofpersonal privacy. lt is very imfnrtant that people he ahle to protecr rheir privacv on television as well as on the intemet. This is a difficult issue when matters of public interest are involved. However, it is a fundamental value that should be respected. The unauthorised recording ano telecast of a private conversation in the very personal and confidential situation is a matter ofserious concem. It is evident from the published matter thal the Minister was not the originator ofthe conversation. The Minister was answering a call from a seemingly familiar person. When the long-distance midnight call went away, the woman had the option to terminate the call. She did not. Instead she instigated the unwary Minister to continue the lascivious talk with vigour. Apart from the impropriety involved in the matter, the legal question is whether the law permits anyone, including the participant in the conversation, to record the conversation without the knowledge and consent of the other participant, in my opinion the recording itself was impermissible. The television channel's nasty inaugural proffer was described as a real conversation between the Minister and a widow in need of assistance from the Minister. Apart from the vulgarity in the televised conversation, it is an instance offake news. It was a lie. A vulgar news was created by the channel, employing its own woman joumalist, for commercial exploitation. Vulgarity is a punishable offence but there rs no safeguard against fake, false or fabricated news. The Minister was not trying to€xploit the vulnerability of a helpless widow. Kochi'30 310 The prurient programme evoked harsh public criticism which prompted the head of the channel to apPear in person on the screen and make a clarification that it was a sting operation. There is no clarity on whether it was a genuine expose following an investigation supported b1'a sting operation- If it were a sting operation' the channel ought to have presented the news as such in the beginning itself. The unethical camouflage in the presentation of a patently fake news was against tlre canons of civilised journalism. Sting operation by its very nature is violative of the principles ol privacy. No public interest is served to justify the clandestine activity. The channel itself was in embarrassing doubt about the nature of its ribaldry. For more clarity on this issue I am respectfully suggesting a reading of pp 123 - 125 and p. 219 from my book IPw' Ethk:s and the Media (3'd edition), published by Lexis Nexis. Being a nascent media with none to guide and control, the electronic media is proving to be capable of causing havoc as well as mischief' There is no self regulatory mechanism for the audio visual media' The broadcasting industry has no equivalent of the Press Council. The electronic media is being the ambit of the Press Council. It is functioning in a free for all atmospheres. Broadcasting content and practice is scarcely regulated by law and the independent Broadcasters Association, a regulatory body, is functioning without any statutory authority. The establishment of a statutory body to sit in pubic in order to investigate and decide upon complaints from the public is a necessity. The British experience in establishing a Broadcasting Complaints - Commission iti 1981 can be taken into account in this regard. lll Govemmental interference in the affairs of the media is a constitutionally impermissible thing. Prior restraint is anathema; so also is subsequent action. No action can go beyond the permissibte parameter delineated in Article | 9(2) of the Constitution. The policc action against Mangalam Tel*.ision; including the raid on the premises and the arrest of senior editors, were perilously on the verge of unconstitutionality. They were arrested and paraded with handcuffs jeering in front of advocates in the court premises. This is not the way we should treat ourjoumalists. The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is functioning as a restraining force. But the recent order suspending the licence of NDTV for a few hours was criticised vehemently as an attempt on the part of the executive to hamper liee fimctioning of the media. Executive action, howso€ver good the intention may be, is no substitute forjudicial or quasi judicial security. Remedial measures, including the creation of a quasi judicial regulatory body for the visual media, are completely within the legislative competence of the Union. The Kerala Media Academy can be pressed into service for raising the awareness level with regard to ethical joumalism. Apart from Television Rating points (TRp), the veracity of which is not conclusively established, there is another rating based on credibility. It is done by the public though it may not be counted. The erring media should be taught this importrrt lesson. Let the media function in an atmosphere of unfettered freedom. Aberrations will be checked and corrected by a vigilant public in due course," 312 163 Journslistic etbics and profesional standerds The joumalistic ethics and professional standards expected of joumalists working in lndia are already discussed in Chapter 14'3 and PCI contained in 'Norms of Joumalistic Conduct 2010 Edition' of in 2008' and Annexure - X Code of Practice of NBA published Considering the conduct ofCW I R. Ajithkumar' CW 3 Mohammed' R. Jayachandran, CW 4 M.P. Santhosh, CW 7 Firoz Sali only an CW8 S.V. Pradeep and CW 8 Nazila Nazimuddin (who filed affrdavit) before the Commission' having directly or indirectly of the involved in the making of lhe voice clipping and the telecast standards same is totally against the joumalistic and professional that the expected of joumalists. When CW I R' Ajithkumar states is norms of joumalist conduct is not applicable to electronic media' it true only in the sensc that Press Council has no iurisdiction over are the el€ctronic medir as en estsblishment' But thos€ norms applicabte to every journelist who calls himself one' As swom by CW 19 and as informed by NBA' Mangalam Television Channel has not become a member of these bodies and NBSA cannot take any action against a non-member. By tendering a live apologl on any the telecast of the voice clipping, the Mangalam Channel escaped action by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting' CW I R. Ajithkumar denied the material averments in the Annexure - III apology regarding the sting operation and the eight member editorial board. Thus he has cheated the entire public to whom the apology wils addressed and also the Ministry of lnformation and i €il 313 Broadcasting who closed the file regarding the complaints filed against the violations of Mangalam Television Channel in view of the apology. Thus it is seen that not only the voice clipping, but also the apology is false. The Mangalam Television Channel and irs CEO CW I R. Ajithkumar and otherjoumalists are like outlaws in the world ofelectronic media. As pointed out by Counsel for CW 17, joumalism is a profession. Be it the print media or the electronic media is considered to be the 4ft pillar of the democratic State. It is also called the 4b estate. Like any other profession the joumalism also should be guided by principles and ethics in their profession. The rmderlying principle that govems the Press either print or electronic, is that gathering and selling ofnews and views is essentially a public trust. It is the same kind of trust which is implied in the relationship between a doctor and patients. Though medical men work under discipline of professional code which is statutorily recognized and they arc applied to hold recognized medical degrees, joumalism is a free profession subject to the extemal restrictions of the laws of the land. But a dishonest doctor can harm and worst only a few dozen or a few score of his patients while the dishonest joumalist may poison the minds of hundreds or thousands or millions ofthe general polity. Every news item prepared by the joumalists and published by the media should be accurate and fair. The basic object of the joumalism is to serve the public with news, views, comments, analysis, critics, isals and information on matters ofpublic interest in a fair, 314 and decent accurate, objective, unbiased' sober, rational' wholesome or manner. The media can cause much harm if baseless' misleading or distofied news ahout an individual, communitv' programme the media organization is published. This peculiar nature of the material underscores the importance of accuracy and faimess in worl published. The famous author Mr' Thomas W' Kooper in his Communication, Ethics and Global Change says that a study of more all than 100 media ethics codes around the world revealed that almost In media system are committed to truth telling and preventing harm' regard to the news il€m, it should be 100% truthful without allowing by the imagination to play any mischief. It is the principle adopted intrude media of all the countries in the world that the media shall not by upon or invade the privacy of an individual unless outweighed genuine overriding publlc interest, not being a Prurisnt or morbid in the curiosity. This has been codified by the Press Council of India joumalistic guidelines evolved by it. It is the accepted principles of ethics that while reporting the person's statement, interpolation of words is highty objectionable. It is always open to media to make its comment on a person's statement, but it is not proper to report the statement in secretly or add something which may convey any different meaning or subtract from it. It is an accepted principle of joumalistic ethics that joumalist should not tape record anyone's conversation without his knowledge or consent except where the recording is necessary to protect the joumalist in any legal action or for other compelling rcasons' With the advent of Television, sting operation is being carried out by the reportegq-of Television channels. But in some cases' the joumalists 4,i Ir i\B1':ct' - '. ll"' '\:.,:. , '.; 3',I5 indulge in sting operations just to create for sensationalism sells. It is also established principle of joumalism conduct that no obscene or vulgar joumal or offensive matter in any fomm should be published. Though the expressions obscenity or wlgarity are not capable ofprecise definition, these aspects are to bejudged with reference to the facts and circumstances of the particular case depending upon the totality of the irnpression that crcated in the minds of the readerVviewers. The act of Mangalam Television Channel and its officials is clearly unethical. This Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to see that they have conspired with malicious and criminal intention to malign and defarne CW 17 to get a high rating to their channel in the opening day itself and for that matter they have forged and manipulated electronic documents and aired false and incurable materials. Their acts are offences attracting various penal provisions also". 16.3.1 The Conduct of some of the Journalists before the Commission The evidence and conduct of CW I R. Ajithkumar, CW 3 R. Jayachandran, CW 4 M.P. Santhosh, CW 7 Firoz Sali Mohammed and CW 8 S.V. Pradeep is already referred to in Chapter 7 and Chapter 12 above. These witnesses werc not ready to tell the truth. The answers to the questions put by.this Commission werc vague uncertain and evasive. Decisive questions put by the Commission to these witnesses were met by the answer "it is relative". J. .,it'" 316 CW I R. Ajithkurnar went to the extent of saying that truth is relative' These witnesses were as if determined not to tell the truth. One of these witnesses went to the extent of being disrespectful to the Commission and attempted to stall the proceedings of the Commission by quarrelling with the advocates present. When the Commission intervened, he started dictating as to how the Commission should conduct its proceedings' His conduct amounted to disorderly behaviour. But this Commission is experienced enough to shrug off such conduct of witnesses. As the Commission is functioning within a time limit, the prime object of the Commission is to complete the inquiry within the time schedule. In spite of such conduct of the witnesses, this Commission could complete the proceedings as per schedule. Gross immaturity of the said witness was complete when he put up a face book post justiffing and glorifying himself and finding fault with the advocates and Commission- But it is also to be noted that in the last paragaph ofthe face book post, the witsress showered encomium by stating that the Commission was just in its proceedings and he was satisfied with himself ! 16,4 Socisl Media and Cyber crimes It has come out in the inquiry that the Mangalam Television Channel and the men behind it also committed cyber crimes. Cyber crimes or electronic crime is linked with a computer and intemet. A computer is used as a means or as a tool to commit a crime- It is already found in Chapter 12.4.5 and 12.4.6 that the Mangalam Television Charurelr'r and CWI to Cwl0 committed the offences ;i-rfrt., t't.,-,,,^,t',1 '/r t 317 punishabfe under section 67, 67 A, g4 B and S. g5 of the tnforrnation Technolog;r Act, 2000 and rmder sections 109, l2OB,2Ol, Zg4,463, 464, penal 469, 470 zrrd 47 | of the Indian Code, lg60 by the making of the voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State and tefecasting it on 26 .O3 .2017 . In the complaint dmed 29.03.2017 of Adv. Sreeja Thulasi addressed to DGP, it was clearly stated that the voice clipping aired by the Mangalam Television Charnel was spreading in the social rnedia and produced copy a of the same in a pen drive as evidence. It is alleged that the voice clipping is a forged one, edited, manipulated and tampered wirh and this would be clear, if the original record is seized and compared with the voice clipping. In the complaint dated 29.03.2017 of Adv. Mujeeb Rahman on the basis of which another crime was registered it is stated that the voice clipping is cyber pomography and in telecasting the voice clipping the accused committed cyber stalkng, hacking and forgery. It is also stated the that voice clipping was also published in the Face book account of Mangalam Television Channel at 5.46 p.m. on 26.03.2017. From the above it is seen that the Mangalam Television Channel and the men behind also used social media to spread the voice clipprng with th€ intention to gain popularity for the Mangalam Television Charurel. It has come out in inquiry that the voice clipping was also posted the You in Tube as complained by one Saiju Menon who to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Kochi-30 // / t)'-' 318 to the NBA. NWMI, Kerala in its complaint stated that such a part of broadcast was done by the Mangalam Television Channel as their launch, only for the purpose of commercial interest and no public interest is involved in it. It is further stated that "such a highly indecent, obscene audio content was edited and manipulated of version of the original audio, a forged one only for the purpose inviting public attention to the newly launched news channel"' Statistics {iom the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) shows in that Kerala tops in cyber crimes' The statisics of cyber crimes It is seen Kerala during the year 2016 is shown in Annexure - XI' the provisions that a total number of 283 cases were registered under in of I.T. Act, 2000, IPC and other special laws Out of which only is also 130 cases charye sheet have been filed in different Courts' It Emakulam seen that the highest pendency of cyber crimes is in the District, i.e. 56 cases. lt appeas that creation of a cyber crimes for division for the investigation of cyber crimes and a Special Court situation' the trial of cyber crime cases are necessary to deal with the 16.5 Misuse of the freedom of lVledia Media has a privileged position (commonly called the enlightenment function) in democratic countries based on mle of law' As observed by the authors of 'Media Ethics Cases end Moral Reasoning" democratic theory gives the press a crucial role' In traditional a free democracies, education and information are the pillars on which to be a society rests. Informed public opinion is typically believed enornous power - indeed, the comerstone of legislative weapon of ' tl 319 government. But in rhe 21s century media has emerged as a major industry with all associated vices. While commitment to truth and accurary in news reporting is recognized as a fundamental obligation ofjoumalistic ethics, the qu€st for breaking news in 24 x7 News Charmels result in a search for sensational news with scant regard for truth and accuracy in news reporting. Dale Jacquette in his book, 'Journslistic Ethics Morrl Responsibility in the Medil' observes as follows:- ..THE MIDAS TOUCH OF TELf,VISION NEWS There are vast profits to be made in television trroadcasting including television news programmes. At first this fact might seem paradoxical. While there are around - ttre- clock news channels, a few daily hour- long news programmes, and documenta4i and investigative joumalism shows that usually air once a week available today on American television and throughoul the developed world, one would think that news reporting on television in particular occupies only a tiny part ofthe broadcasting schedule. This is true. but the fact is that news remains a major source of income for network television where most of the profits are currently to be made. The reason is that news programming is comparatively less expensive to produce than any other type of . ,,J . - lr 320 progrmming, with a higher percentage of viewer attraction per programme production cost. We need only think of how many people make a point of watching the evening half-hour nightly news programmes on television. These are deliberately scheduled to coincide with the time most Persons have arrived home from work and are either eating or about to eat their dinner. This is the perfect opportunity to get viewers to tune in and, hence, the perfeci time to advertise goods and services. lt is, moreover, as we all know, advertisers who finally pay the bills for cornmercial television production costs, including . the news. It is lie news, however, where the greatest marketing window allows advertisers to reach more potential buyers than any other single hour of the television broadcasting day for a comparable investment". Now, examining the Mangaalam Channel's voice clipping in the light of the above it can be seen thal a channel would go to any extent to create a sensational news for profits and TRP rating with scant regard for accuracy and ethics. Wirctapping without authority of law by employing a woman joumalist and thereafter airing the voice clipping, which was edited, manipulated and tempered with using computer, in the process of which several offences are committed, also constitute gross violation of the constitutional right to privacy as guaranteed under Article 2l of the Constitution of India. The Suprcme Court in Justice lCS. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. I'J. 321 Union of India (2017 (4) KLT | (SC) referred to above has declared that privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges prirnarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 2l ofthe Constitution. In the present case, there are three versions of the news on voice clipping as stated by CW I R. Ajithkumar, CEO of the Mangalam Television channe l: i) The news was aired stating that the pomographic, obscene and sexual content in the audio was made by the Minister A-K. Saseendran to a poor housewife who approached him for help. When the news became a hot debate CW I claimed that tlre audio clip was given by a helpless house wife victimized by the sexual atrocities of Minister A.K. Saseendran. ii) After the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry and registration of 2 criminal cases and widespread condemnation from the public, on 30.03.2017 CW I tendered an apolog)r stating tlat it was a sting operation by their woman journalist and tendered unconditional apology for the misleadins news. iii) Before this Commission CW t R. Ajirhkumar stated that it was not a sting operation and that the channel telecast only the voice clipping in a pen drive which was brought by CWl0 the reporter. j' t. ;'| .tl 322 on It is only to be found that what is telecast by Mangalam Channel TRP rating' 26.03.?017 is only a fake news created for profits and joumalism is given a While doing so the ground rules of ethical morality' complete go-by sidelining professional standards and place where Television Broadcasting has become a crowded market such an unhealthy channels vie with one another for viewers' In has come to occupy a scenario 'sting joumalism' and entapment up' the pivotal position- Now with number of channels spiralling to b€ touching a downward spiral in standard of joumalism seems when he said' "A reporter new low. Dr. Semuel Jobnson was right his profit" (Quoted is a man without vitue who writes lies""""for authors of Media by Karen Sanders in Ethics & Journalism)' The Ethics states that the latest Gallup Polls (2005) reveal press Britain it is 15 credibility at 13 percent in the United States' ln in Kerala percent, according to Krren Sanders' lt must be lower after the Mangalam channel news of 26'03'7017 ' 16.6 Media Justice the The unbridled freedom exercised by the media' especially of speech and electronic media amounting to misuse of the freedom justice in our expression is also obstmcting the administration of Country. The media has assumed the role of the accuser' The reporting of prosecutor and the Judge through media trial' to the Bar are court proceedings and the queries put by the Judges breaking news' In also reported as order of the court and subject of Kannsmmal and (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cascs 6{X) (S' Khusboo v' be a little more Another) the Supreme Court cautioned the media to ,,- | lL4 tzt careful, rcsponsible and cautions in this regard- The Supreme Court observed as followsi "53. Admittedly, all thos€ persons who have sent lefters to us were not present on that particular date but must have gathered information from tlre print and electronic media which evoked their sentimenrs ro such an extent that they prayed for review. lt is, therefore, not only desirable but imperative that electronic and news media should also play positive role in presenting to general public as to what actually transpires during the course of the hearing and it should not be published in such a manner so as to get unnecessaq/ publicity for its own paper or news channel. Such a tendency, which is indeed gromng fast, should be stopped- We are saying so as without knowing the reference in context of which the questions were put forth by us, were completely ignored and the same were misquoted which raised unnecessa4/ hue and cry. We hope and trust in fuhre, they would be a little more careful- responsible and cautious in this resard.,, Media also interferes with enforcement of law and order. Ilr. Sebastian Paul has noted in Law, Ethics end Tbe Medie as follows:_ " The Supreme Court's blunt rebuke of television channels for their careless and competitive feeding 324 frenzy while covering the Mumbai 26ll I tenor attack was generally welcomed as a moderate criticism. The live coverage of 26lll, continuously for sixty hours, set a low in TV joumalism with the most basic of norms - objectivlty' verification' dispassion - making way for a heated, overzealous and inconsiderate jumble of words and images' At times the frenzied coverage risked the lives of people trapped in the two Mumbai hotels and endangered the security forces' The Pakistani handlers were issuing instructions to the terrodsts on the basis of what they were watching on television"' In Kerala the media's refusal to adhere to the rules of court reporting which is has led to a rift between the media and the lawyer comrnunity, a subject matter of a Commission of Inquiry and cases are also pending before the Hon'ble Higlr Court of Kerala and Supreme Court. The situation is succinctly summoned up by K'P' Chandran' the author of "Judiciary, A Panacea With No CurC' as follows:- " It is to be seen that this is one of the areas where media knowingly or unknowingly, Play its negative role and indirectly interrneddles with the administration ofjustice by giving undue publicity to the emotional content involved in certain incidents of crimes' They play the prime role in sensationalising such emotive 32s issues. Irnpelled by the sensation so create4 we see judges 'struggling' to justiry even pre.trial det€ntion of persons who are accusatively pointed as culprits. Judges do so even in those incidents where they know that they are not legally justified in detaining such persons. The prejudice which starts at the bail stage in this manner continues to influence them until they pronounce sentences. Therefore, media persons cannot wriggle out from their obligation to maintain tlrough self-restraint and a sharp sense of discrimination while they deal with emotionally sensitive issues . If they are not showing the prudence to adopt such self-restraint and sense of discrimination, then, for saving the administration of justice from being shrltified as noted above, tle system will have to tum to the last report of making law for hamessing the media. Law should be the last resort only as far as media is concemed because freedom of the Fourth Estate is the freedom of the people". 16.7 The Conduct of the Media towards tbe Commission Every right has a concomitant duty. While the media has the fieedom of speech and expression under Article l9(l) (a) subject to the restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it has the duty to inform the matters of public interest. The Public have a right to information for which they rely on the media. But the media often fail to report matters of public importance and on which the public have a 326 right to know. In their quest for profits Print and Electronic Media concentrate on getting maximum advertisements which they publish or broadcast by getting the people's attendon to sensational news. When the voice clipping alleged to be of a Minister of the State was telecast and led to the rcsignation of Transport Minister A.K. Saseendran, not only the general public, the other channels as well were shocked by the low level of joumalism and the immorality. The Mansalarn Channel was isolated. Govemment declared appointirent of Commission of Inquiry and two criminal cases were registered and C.E.O, Chairman and Senior joumalists of the Mangalarn Channel were anested. It was a celebmtion of a sensational news forthe News Channels of Kerala. The appointment of this Commission and the initial functioning of the Commission were well-covered by the Media. But when the Commission issued notice to CW 18 and CW 19 on the issues of exteDt of freedom of media as a whole, invasion of right to privacy, questions of joumalistic ethics etc-, the media ceased covering the firnctioning of the Commission. Even when the former Minister A.K. Saseendran appeared twice before the Commission to give evidence, the same was not covered by the media. Normally such appearance ofa former Minister is news for the media. On the following day of the appearurce before this Commission, the former Minister had to appear before the Chief Judicial Magishate, Trivandrum to face the case filed by CWl0 against him. That was reported by the media ! qr 327 Media hss a r€spmsibility to collect ncwsworthy facts about what is hapeeDing in tlp wodd and r€?ort them accurately cnd in time in the interest of the ptrblic, hoouring the rigbt to information of the public. l6J Medir Edncrtion witt Enphrrbe on Mcdir Llw & Ethics It has come to the notice of the Commission during the inquiry that joumalism being a free pmfession, ther€ is no uniform standard of qualification for a working jourralisl On beins asked by the Commission to findsh the edrcational md tecbnical qualifications of the joumalisrs of tte Mangalam Television Channel, the replygiven by CW I R Ajitlkumar, C.E.O and CW 2 Sajan Varghese, Chairman rcspoutiveiy is that all stafrs h.v= required experience in'relevisiorr joumalism. From the oramination of the joumalist who worked in the Mangalam Television Channel, it is se€n that only a few ofthem have a University level education in joumalism. It is seen t}at many of them have only a Diploma in joumalism which is obtained after a six months or one year part-time course impart€d by Press Clubs. These joumalists have little grasp ofmedia law and ethics. CW I R' Ajithkumar, C.E.O. of Mangalam Television Channel adrnitted that he had experience only in the print media and that he is not conversant with the electr,onic media As the Indian Media and Entertainment lndustry is a suffis€ sector for the economy and is making high growth stides, students of media have a variety of optios to choose fron as frr as their ctr€€r cboice is concemed- Print Electlonic, the Intemet md also the Film media prolide them with q,plethora of opportmities. Whichever media and 328 whichever type of job they choose, all of th€m need to possess some basic knowledge ofmedia law. Failing to do so will not only cost them dear but also their employers and the media organisations to which tley belong - the defarnation and contempt of court cas€s pending against media organisations in various cornts of India being just a small example- This is an era in which the importance of professional ethics, and also the lack of it, is being increasingly felt in all the professions. Comparatively speaking media professionals have all the nore responsibility to adh€re to ethics in their profession as the unethical content in media has the capacity to affect the psyche and norns of the entire nation. The present case of the Mangalaur Tcievision Chamel t€lecasting the voice clipping with explicit sexual contents in violation of the Prograrnne Code on 26.03.2017 is a t€lling example of the ignorance of media law and scant disregard for Code of Ethics and professional stmdards. CW 14 Al-Neerna was a Posgraduate in Joumalism and Comrnunication from the University Centre of M.G. Univenity- She was aware of norms of ethics and professional standards rmlike other joumalists of the Mangalam Television Channel who justified the telecast of tlre voice clipping. CW i4 objected to the tBlecast of the voice clipping and resigned from the Channel protesting ag'inst the unethical conduct of the Mangalam Television Channel ManagemenL There is a necessity to revamp nedia education. Besides the Diploma courses conducted by the Press Club, some media houses like Malayala Manorama has_Apir own School of Joumalism to train their joumaliss / '/-\At! I rti i \J/L.-?I I W-,, I 329 for the print alrd electrmic media Kerala Media Academy is coriducting Diploma courses in Print , El€ctrqic Media and public Relations. To achiwe professionalism, media education at the University level should be encowaged with emphasise on media law and ethics which is hardly given any emphasise at the diploma level joumalisrn education and training given by Prcss Club. Media play an important role in the socialization of yo,,ng people, a phenomenon which has been gaining in momentum. The public make informed decisions mainly on the basis of information passed on by media As Drle Jacquette observed in Journelism Ethics lVlorel Responsibility. in thc Medie : "Joumalists are morally responsible to the public whose informed decision making and other asp€cts of their welfare can depend essentially or the rclevant truth content of news repots. It is in tems of the news audience that journalistic ethics must primadly speak, for the sake of those whom the reporting of news events is ultimately meant to s€rve aod on whose lives its content can exert a profound influence for good or bad.,, The Govemment can take initiative to encourage joumalism wilh responsibility and accountability by introducing media education at the School level onwrds so as to make the young generation aware ofthe benefits and per.ils of the media in general and the necessity to take precar*ions while using the media especialy social media. The media be persuaded to foltow ethical joumalism. 330 can be Dr. Scbecti.D Peut opirnd thc Kerala Media Acadcmy with regard to pressed hto servicc for raising frc awaren€ss level joumaliss' All fte jounalists ethioal joumalisn anong the wo'rking fromPrintarrdElechonicMediashorrldrmdergoanannualrefiesher courseinmedialawandethicsaspartofacontinuingmediaeducation Media Academy as a pFogramme to be conduct€d by tre Kerala annual basis' precondition for renewal ofaccreditation on an 16.9 Code of Conduct for Ministers Saseendran MLA has been It has come out in inquiry that CW 17 A'K' of the State h very accessible, friendly and liberal as a Minister *Fourft It is seen that he haci dealing with members of the Estate'' him in his personal permitted CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin to contact 10 was only a joumalist mobile phone nwnber. It is seen that CW ffainee/Subeditoronprobationofanewchannelwhichwasyetto$an joined the Mangalam functioning. CW 10 Nazila Nazimuddin interviewed the Television charmel only on 0l'07'2016' CW l0 admitted by CW 17' Transport Minister on 08'll'2016' This is from 16'll'2017 on Thereafter CW l0 started contacting the Minister in the pretext of having a discussion on the she-toilet facility The K.S.RT.C. as part of the progra*me of women's safety' of the joumalist could very well get information and other details Commissioner or pmject from the M.D. of I(.S'R'T'C- or Transport to be a subj€ct from Public Relarions [t€partment. It does not 4pear a Minister hims€lf should deal with' 331 Similarly when CWl5 yazir, A.M. Reporter of Mangalam Television Channel contacted CW l7 Minister A-K. Saseendran on 25.03.2017 through telephone for an interview, CW I 7 readily agreed to the request and asked CW 15 to :xrange place a convenient to him and that he would come there for the interview. According to CW 15 A.M. yazir- the interview was held at a fiiend's place. The above conduct 17 of CW A.K. Saseendran MLA shows that he was very much accessible and friendly to the members of the fiourth estate whether male or female- Sometirnes such friendly approach and familiarity of Ministers are likely to be misused by media persons for their personal gain and against public interest. The above incident and the conduct of CW 17 A.K. Saseendran MLA as Transport Minister shows that there should be a Code of Conduct for the Ministers especially in dealing with the Media. Ministers need to talk to the media only on important matters of public importance. lnformation/news on routine matters and on going projectV progmmmes can be obtained by the media from the concemed departmental heads or from the public information bureau. Ministers need to speak only to senior and accreditedjoumalists/rcporters. It does not appear that junior a raw joumalistic like CW l0 Nazila had even accreditation as joumalisVrepotter. a Even if the media approaches a Minister for an interview, it should be done through the office of the Minister concemed. I When asked on the existence ofa Code of Conduct for Ministers, CW l7 replied that he did not know about it- There is a demand for a Code ofConduct for the Ministers even from the side of media. In 0re argument note filed by the Counsel for CW 2 Sajan Varghese, Chairman of Mangalam Television Channel and others, it is stated as follows:- " The terms No. (iv) of the reference is that to inquire into the other matters connected with this case as the Commission observes. CW 17 categorically denied during the cross-examination by the Counsel for CW 2, CW 4 and CW 6 that there is no Code of Conduct to the Ministers and other representatives of people. One of the major theats against the Democratic systern in our counry is the moral turpitude of the elected representatives. Our State was frozen for long periods pursuant to the solar scam- The judicial commission appointed for conducting inquiry on solar scam submitted reports pointing to the abuse of powers by the rulers for the consideration of sex and woman. Hence it is necessary to recommend for framing Code of Conduct to the Ministers and other representatives of people from the part of government." Therefore, it appears to be in the interest of public administration and in public intcrest th.t a Code of Conduct should be framed for the of the State and especially in dealing with media. Finisten '. \ /, it-' 333 CHAPTER 17 Voicc Clipping & Criminel Cases 17.1 Telecrst ofthe voice clipping The voice clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State was telecast by the Mangalam Television Channel on 26.03.2017 nt lll. 11.33 to ll : 14.10 and thereafter there was repeat telecast of the same 18 times all 23.35 : 30 on the same day as reported by the EMMC in Amexure - II report. Annexure - I voice clipping was telecast in front ofchildren and ladies. A.nnexure - I contents ofvoice clipping contains sexual, obscene and explicit pomographic content. Before the second tel€cast CW6 Anchor Lakshmi Mohan warned the viewers to keep the children away from Television reach as it contains adults only content. Whil€ telecasting the said sexual content, even one ofthe women guests who were present at the studio, namely, CW 12 Dhanya Raman, a young social activist had closed her eyes and ears, as the content being indecenl obscene, defamatory and unbearable to be heard in a public space. The said telecast of the voice clipping prima facie makes out offences punishable under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 67 and 67,4' of the lnformation Technolog;r Act. It is also in violation of the Programme Code in Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. I I LJ [, 334 I 7.2 Responsibility of the Stste Police In this context, the following questions, arise for consideration:- I ) Why did not the State Police register a case suo motu against the Mangalam Television Channel and the people behind the telecast oftle obscene voice clipping, which is a cognisable offence? 2) Why the State Police did not prevent the repetition of the offences 18 times on the same day ? 'Iwo criminal cases were regisiercd only on 30.03.2017 as CBCID Crime No. 5lrcR/OCWI/TVpM and Crime No. 52ICR/OCWI /TVPM undcr section t20 B IPC and S. f7 A of the i.T. Act, 2000 on the basis of the complaints addressed to DGp by Adv. Sreeja Thulasi of Trivandrum and Adv. Mujeeb Rahman, State president of National Youth Congress on 29 .03 .2017 . Under section 149 of the Code of Criminat procedure, 1973, every police officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, to the best of his ability, prevent the comrnission of any cognizable offence. i) Is there no machinery or division/team of pclice authorized to register a case suo motu, on the basis of an obscene telecast or a broadcast like a call for rioting and violence in the Television channels? 335 ii) Is there no machinery/division/team of police authorized to prevent repeated commission of cognizable offences committed by News Channels? The State police are liable to answer the above questions for their omission to discharge their duty under section 149 of the Cr'P'C" 1973. 17.3 Progress of Investigation The progress of the investigation is already discussed in Chapter 7.16 and 7.17 of this r€port- CW2l Shanavas, Dy'S'P'' CW22 Bijumon, Dy.S.P. , Hi-Tech Cell are the main investigating officen above of the above crirninal cases. The two criminal cases mentioned three progress are clubbed and investigated as one ca!i€' CW2l filed reports of the investigation on 14'06'2017, 30'08'2017 and present to 03.10.2017 respectively. CW 2l and CW 22 were also inspection of assist the Commission on 15.09.2017 during the local Mangalam Television Channel premises at Trivandrum' Commission and From the evidence of CW 2l and CW 22 before this this Comrnission is from the th'ree progress rcports mentioned above' of the above of the opinion that there is no proper investigation clipping and the criminal cases registered on the telecast of the voice by this Commission offences committed by CWI to CW l0 as found in Chapter 12.3.2, 12.4.5 and 12'4'6 above' ,'ai:-t-'-. .,'.:\/ l ..''' ir",Ku,," ,.- : '\rl\- '\ti=r:,"' 336 It appears that the case is not being investigated witlr the seriousness it deserves and with any sense of direction. The following omissions in investigation are serious and conspicuous:- i) As per Order dated 30.03.2017 the State police Chief constituted a Special Investigation Tean (SIT) headed by Inspector General Shri Kashyap including two S.ps. and Dy.S.Ps. including CW 2l and CW 22 d one Woman Sub Inspector. But till 03.10.2017, the dfieof filing of the last progress report, Nazila Nazimuddin, woman reporter of Mangalam Television Charurel who was employed by CW I and CW 3 to conduct the alleged sting operation, is not seen made an accused, though her name was mentioned in the complaint datd, 29.03.2017 of Adv. Sreeja Thulasi- She was not even questioned by the investigating officers till 04.A9.2017. It has come out in inquiry from the evidence of CW I and others of thc Mangalam Television Channel before the Commission that Nazila Nazimuddin has been working in the Channel. What is the reason for this delay ? ! ii) On 04.08.2017 CW 2l Shanavas, Dy.S.p questioned Nazila Nazimuddin and recorded her statement as seeri from the evidence ofCW 22 Bijumon, Dy.S.p and fiom the progress rcport datd 03.10-2017. But she is not yet arayed as accused and report given to the court. lvhat is the reason for this perfunctory investigation? 6r*% i(x"ct'i-ro )(1 Rx-19 337 iii) AAer the questioning of Nazila Nazimuddin by CW 2l Shanavas, Dy.S.P., she published the Annexure _ Vl face book post. During the inquiry CW 3 R. Jayachandran admitted that he had read this face book post. euestions were put to CW 3 R. Jayachandran the contents ofthe face book post of Nazila Nazizrnuddin. She stated that she was cheated by CW 3 and others and that she would have made a disclosure as done by the woman joumalist who resigned from the Channel. But she was restrained by athactive offers. CW22 Dy.S.p. also admitted that the face book post was noticed by them. On 16.08.2017 the face book post was withdrawn by Nazila Nazimuddin. Daily Indian Herald Online news poftal reported the withdrawal of the post. The news portal has also reported that Nazila Nazimuddin was about to make a complete disclosure against CW I R. dithkumar and CW 3 R. Jayachandran and thereupon they rush€d to meet Nazila and pacified her with fresh offers and it was thereafter the Annexure - VI face book post was withdrawn. Annexure -VII Daily India Herald news was also put to CW 3 R. Jayachandran. The above developments also indicate the criminal conspiracy to make the voice clipping to get the resignation of a Minister of the State. If the Annexure - VI face book post and Annexure - VII Daily Indian Heratd news are true, it is clear that CW l0 Nazila Nazimuddin was used as a woman 338 to commit offences and in that case she will have to be made an accomplice. Why the investigation is not conducted from that angle? iv) The telecast of the voice clipping said to be that of a Ministry of the State led to the resignation of Transport Minister. CW 17 A.K' Saseendran denied in the press meet announcing his resignation and also before the Commission that he talked as in the voice clipping' But' the investigating officers have not questioned CW 17 A'K' Saseendran and recorded his statement to ascertain whether or not he talked as alleged by the Mangalam Television Channel news and about his voice' This is a serious omission in investigation. What is the reason for not recording the statement of CW 17 A'K' Saseendran ? Who is responsible for this omission? v) In Chapter 12.4.5, ir is found tlat oflences under sections 67, 674, 84B and 85 of the I.T' Act, 2000 are made out against the Mangalam Television Channel which is owned by the Company G.N. Info Media Private Limited and against the persons behind the making and the telecast of the voice clipping. But the police has not so far conducted a proper investigation. As a result" the police has reported offfence only under section 67 A of the I'T Act' Police has also not investigated the role ofthe company in f"t)'- .---VA t"es 339 the Coomission of tlrc offences under sections 67.' 67A and 84B md under section 85 of the I.T. Ac! 2000. The owner of the lvlangalan Telwision Chamel, G.N. Info Media Private Limited is liable to be made an accused under sec{ion 85 of the I.T. Act This is another serious omission on the part ofthe investigating officers. vi) The case is not at all investigated from the angle of forgery cornmitted by CW I R Ajithkunar and others of the Mangalam Televisiqr Charmel in the making and telecast of the voice clipping. It is alrcady found by this Commission ttnt prima frie S. 463, 4&, 469,470 and S, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are made ow against the accused in rhe criminal cases. vii) Though a Special Investigdion Team was formed under the leadenhip of an I.G. and two S.Ps., there is no whisper in the three progress r€ports by CW 2l Shanavas, Dy.S.P. that the SIT ever met and discussed the progress of the case and assessed the evidence/materials collected in the case and given any direction to CW 2l and CW 22 the mein investigding officers. The above omissions show tlrat so far no proper investigarion is conducted by the police, though very serious offences were comnitted rgainst tfie Stzie by the telecast of the >l3;|y* *ch is formd to be the prodrrct of a /:-r+-t!l\ {=i(**n't)t+ !'j,."K:-/ 3/S0 criminal conspiracy and forgery. Investigation should be conducted with a sense of direction and complaed expeditiously. The sp,ecial investigdion tean is expected to function with efficiency and competence and achieve the purpose for which it was fomred. 341 CHAPTER 18 Conclusions on Terms of Reference No. 5 This Commission of Inquiry has been asked'to inquire into the other matters connected with this case as the Commission observes"- On the basis of the terms of reference Nos. 1 to 4, inquiry conducted and the documents produced before the Commission and the documents obtained from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govemment of lndia and NBA, the Commission has considered that the following matters are connected with this case and that they also involve ihe following issues:- i) invasion oi Righl to Privaoy ofcitizens; ii) the extent of freedom of media as a whole; iii) measures to prevent the misuse of the freedom of the mediq and iv) questions of joumalistic ethics and professional standards. This Commission has observed that the following matters are connected with this case:- 1) Media law is necessary for the purpose of preserving freedom of the media, enforcement of the rights of the people and regulate 342 the functioning of the media insdmisrs while media ethics is necessary for self-regulalion. 2) There is a specific law, that is, Press Council Ast, 1978 and a stahrtory body, that is, the Press Council of India for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Prcss and of maintaining and improving the standards ofnews papers and news agencies in lndia. 3) There is no specific law and no statutory body to'regulate the private electronic media arld for maintaining md improving the standards of private electonic/broadcast media. 4) The Press Corurcil has no iurisdiction over the electronic media. 5) The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cable Television Network Rules, 19E4 are not effective to regulate the private electronic media. There is no effective rnachinery at the level of Ministry of Infomration & Broadcasting to discipline the erring private electronic media which violates the Programme Code under Rule 6 of the CTN Rules, 1994 unlike S. 14 of the press Council Ac! 1978 and a statutorry body like hess Cormcil of India. 343 6) Ministry of lnformation and Broadcasting, Govemment of India closed the complaints against the Mangalam Television Channel which telecast the voice clipping in violation of the Programme Code under Rule 6 of CTN Rules, 1994 without conducting any inquiry and without notice to the complainants. 7) There is no effeaive machinery for self-regulation in private electronic media. Though NBA published a Code of practice in 2008 and set up NBSA to look into complaints only relating to the contents shown by the member channels of NBA, the Mangalam Channel not being a member of the NBd no action was taken on the complaints received against Mangalam Television Channel. Membership of NBA is not made mandatory lbr new channels. 8) Insufficiency of the present law has been taken note ofby the Supreme Coult and therc are directions to enact a comprehensive law to regulate electronic media as reported in (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 16l and (2011) 13 Supreme Court cases 155. 9) In U.K. there is a comprehensive law to regulate the electronic media. Communications Act , 2003 is an Act to confer fi.mctions of the Office of Communications, to make provision about the regulation of the provisions of electronic communications, networks and services and of the use of the electrG.magnetic spectrum; to make provision about the regulation of broadcasting ili/F\., ,.-:,l !lr.oci':'"tJ l :1 v-. .,1)'''' t44 and of the provision of television and radio services; to make provision about mergers involving newspaper and other media enterprises etc. By virtue of this Act all the functions in par with the above objectives transferred and assigned to Office of Communications - OFCOM. l0) In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court refened to above, the Union Govemrnent shall seriously consider the enactment of a comprehensive law repealing the lndian Telegraph Act, 1885, The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act' 1933, The CTN (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Telecom Regulaiory Act, 1997 on the model of Communications Act, 2003 of U-K. under which the Office of Communications C'OFCOIvf) is the regulatory body for the broadcast media. 1i) The Union Govemment can also consider converting the Press Council as a Media Council with sufficient teeth as suggested by Justice Markandey Katju when he was the Chairman of the Press Council of India. This can be easily done by amending the Press Council Act, 1978 by the Parliament renaming it as Media Council Act to cover the electronic/broadcast media. 12\ There was violation of Right to Privacy which is declared as a fundamental right of the individual to be let alone in the telecast ofa 345 part of the convers{rtion said to be that of a Minister of the State. The act was also not in keeping with joumalistic ethics and orofessional standards. 13) There is misuse of the fieedom of the media which is an industry violating joumalistic ethics and professional standards. Broadcasting has become a crowded market place where news channels vie with one another for viewers bringing down the standard of joumalistic ethics to rock bottom. 14) The unbridled freedom exercised by the media interferes with enforcement of law and order and administration of justice through media trial. 15) There is a necessity for a change in the licensing policy of the Union Govemment in respect of private electronic/broadcast media. As the audio visual media market has become crowded resulting in unhealthy competition and lowering of standards of programme, the number of news channels in regional/vemacular languages should be restricted. The policy can be on the basis of the population strength of a particular State or language along with other parameters to be decided by the Govemment of India considering the interest of the State and the society under Act l9(2) ofthe Constitution. l6) There are serious omissions in the investigation of the registered in connection with the telecast of the voice 346 clipping said to be that of a Minister of the State. There ts unexplained delay in questioning the prime accused who admittedly recorded the conversation. The statement of former Minister A.K. Saseendran is not yet recorded. 17) The Mangalam News Channel also comrnitted cyber crimes by posting the voice clipping in the Face Book and You Tube. 18) There is necessity for amending Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 as the present Section does not include the word 'broadcast' so as to cover specifically the offence of annoyance caused by broadcast of obscene acts, words, songs etc ., througn electronic media . 19) Kerala tops in cyber crimes. There is necessity for cyber crimes division at least at the district level manned by police personal with special training in the prevention and investigation of cyber crimes. 20) There is also necessity for a Special Court for the expeditious disoosal ofcvber crime cases. 2l) There is a necessity for revamp of media education in Kerala. The Govemment can take initiative to encourage joumalism with responsibility and accountability by encouraging media education at the school level onwards. The media houses should be oersuaded to follpw ethieal joumaliism. The Kerala Media Academy can be 347 pressed into service for raising the awareness level with regard to ethical ioumalism. 22) There is a necessity for a Code of Conduct for the Ministers of the State/the Union in general and especially in dealing with the joumalists/media for the effrcient and effective functioning of the democratic system of Govemment. ; l' -, I 348 CHAPTER 19 Recommendations of the Commission On the basis of the conclusions reached by this Commission of Inquiry on terms of reference of No. I to 5, the following recommendations are made for the purpose of taking action by the Govemment :- l) The Govemment may forward a copy of this Report to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govemment of lndia with a recommendation to reopen the complaint file against the Mangalam Television channel for appropriate action including cancelling its broadcasting licence or permission to run the visual channel. 2) A copy of this Report may be forwarded to the Press Council oflndia ior information and necessary action. 3) The absence of self-regulation in the management of Mangalam Television channel and non-membership in the NBA by Mangalam Television channel should also be brought to the notice of the Ministry of lnformation and Broadcasting. ir l,' 349 4l The Mangalam Television channel and the company which owns the channel and the persons behind the makingand telecast of the voice clipping shall be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 67, 67A, 84 B and 5.85 of LT.Act, 20fi) and under Sections 109,'2O 8,201,294,463,4U,469,47O and 471 ofthe IPC before the competent Court after expediting the investigation on the basis ofthe two crimes already registered. 5) CW I R. Ajithkumar is liable to be prosecuted separately for offence punishable under section 182 of the lndian Penal Code. 6) There are serious omissions in investigation as discussed in Chapter 17.3 of this report. SPC, Kerala may be directed to take steps to complete the investigation of the criminal cases registered in connection with the telecast of the voice clipping and the criminal conspiracy behind it including its political dimension etc. , ifany. 7) A Special Court for the trial of cyber crime cases in the rank ofan Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be created and established at Emakulam, Kochi which tops in cyber crime cases, for the expeditious trial of the accused in this case. This Court shall be allowed to continue as a Special Court for the l )I 350 trial of cyber crime cases in view of the increasing trend in cyber crime cases in Kerala. least at 8) A cyber crimes division in police may be formed at the district level manned by police personnel with special qualification and training for the Prevendon and investigation of cyber crime cases. to e) In view of the absence of an effective and comprehensive law regulate the private electronic/broadcast media, the Govemment of Kerala may request the Union Govemment to enact such a law repealing the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, f933, The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and The Telecom Regulatory Act, 199? on the model of the Communications Act' 2003 of U'K under which the office of Communications ("OFCOM") is the regulatory body for the broadcast media. l0) In the altemative to a comprehensive law, for the time being, the Central Govemment may be requested to consider converting the present Press Council as a Media Council to cover the private electronic media with sufticient teeth as suggested by Justice Markandey Katju when he was the Chairman of the Press Council of lndia, by suitably amending the Press Council Act, 1978 by the Parliament and renaming it as Media Council Act to cover the electronic/broadcasting rnedia also. \ - I '' 351 I I ) While forwarding a copy of this report to the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, the observations of this Commission in Chapter 19 regarding Media and Media Ethics may also be brought to the notice of Ministry of lnformation & Broadcasting for necessary action. 12) A Code of Conduct should be framed for the Ministers of the State in general and especially in dealing with the joumalistVmedia. 13) Kerala State Legislature may pzrss a resolution asking the Central Govemment for enactrnent of necessary law for regulating the private electronic/broadcast media in execution of Recommendation No. (9) above as the subject 'broadcasing and other like forms of mmmunication' is included in Entry 3l in the List I -Union List. 14) State Legislature may amend S- 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as follows:- a) Insert a new clause, "( c ) broadcast through audio visual media or any electronic device any obscene act, scene, song or words", b) for the words " which may extend to three months", substitute the words "which mav extend to 3 vears" c) At the end ofthe present S. 294 IPC, add an explanation as follows, "Explanation - mere airing or broadcasting //,; . 't*" '*-\v.. - 'l , t.4 RX-* 352 is suflicient to constitute the offence" t5) The Govemment can take initiative to encourage joumalism with responsibility and accountability by introducing media education at the school level onwards so as to make the young generation aware of the benefits and perils of using the media and especially the social media' The media houses should be persuaded to follow ethical joumalism- The Kerala Media Academy can be pressed into service for raising the awareness level with regard to ethical joumalism. All the joumalists should undergo an annual refresher course in media law and ethics as part of a Continuing Media Education (CME) to be conducted by the Kerala Media Academy as a precondition for renewal of accreditation on an annual basis. 16) Itisleftopento the Govemment to take appropriate decision and take steps to realise liquidated damages fiom the Company G.N. lnfo Media Private Limited which owns the Mangalam Television Channel and the persons directly liable for the telecast of the false news (voice clipping) and causing breach of public order and loss to public exchequer in accordance with law. -l !] t CONCLUSION The inquiry is now duly completed and the report is ready. It is my beliefthat I have discharged the duty entrusted to me to the best of my ability. The report is based on facts disclosed before the Commission during the inquiry. As Gandhiji said in his "My Experiments with Truth", facts are truth. When facts are in issue, I have followed the cardinal principle of justice, - that no man is to be condemned on suspicion. There must be evidence which proves his guilt before he is pronounced to be so. In tiis context, it is apposite to recall the words of Lord Denning in his report of inquiry in his book, "The Due Process of Law" as follows:- "To those who in consequence will reproach me for "white-washing" I would make this answer: While the public interest demands that the facrs should be ascertained as completely as possible, tlere is a yet higher public interest to bebe considered, namely, the interest ofjustice to the individual which over rides all other. At any rate, speaking as a Judge, I put justice first". The report now belongs to the Govemment which shall cause the report to be laid before the Legislature of the State with a memorandum of the action taken thereon under section 3 (4) of the Commissions iry Act, 1952. 354 Considering the public importance of the matter, the report deserves to be discussed by the public at large, especially by all those who stand for the cause of freedom of the media with responsibility and ethical standards. li *l Judge P.S. AntohY District Judgc (Rctd.) & Former Judge, Family Court Commission of Inquiry Ll .1r.2017 4&tt - | o"todlow" -e.-dbz/ c\'t&'eJ' Fn\&'n) '^)2i#", w- 'sta'qa6"'"4) o..itrc@ .***t?f- "Xn? oi^t* : nr u tur i #"iL1-H17,^_ ,q.N; *^.ar'iia,ui )Yu"ort_r. atq+ *':J 6in.o ^ab6{ ;4""';;#ry' :-ju c',o o,,t" ds&..1 y,T3 an", zffiix;; ^*,j: :;y{ "Jff':#k:":! ^-'n s' ; :"Y: ^ t*[) o'u*-,'- u= i"l::,^ .nd8.ro #::'-;' i i ca"'" rr-/p/b .*,,nri-,' - ,bru,l -*l .'- ''o1t^ /.,ts[v:! ! x>Qaor{J .. aa,e-tJ-) ^ et,*'cz.",tc$JW e.-ss)-'--.. .ai)*.u.varuoL,ro. :':r"tdt^-)sa4qr c!,.r,u,^!a - aot,--. ^-,*o o^ ilruu ;;: ":u,outf) tr:''' ' . ,onr-." '---. &p.".ilr!*t. ;'atI.';:-/*J^*"* ..r,^'ttaa-- *'''a,/*{l- """'L'rat 26o,lL"e6.n.(1. -*;-*{ptfu #-Y,'ptrb,.- *:/\-^ ;;; z-a,"" 6c-tdd.b *;;i;t%t,'arala:'v{rDLu .-nA n " " or"il''J'not>,,tr'*r b .l "#.::i"#,: o3I:\X,ea61*4'1 7lf-*'o-t -4r-'"Y;4'/^\AY w #:' _, "1a ( IU"l u-z { ttt) cw,i)g(L/' @J {1.ga".r.. . ''01ilY .$]e,n" susl))o ." twzra 6Z ,r,,,Ic,6E)-z -,@ ,,e ' " 6>1.1 -toew${/4 n 'tr',sr e\r)adrh - . ;:J;l:: !.o'ro -,,<.tu.,, c'-46d) 'rut\' oc ,-,-;;'::'trtat\aan ^4uts6.{ ) -, fl ou@" ., '.r.'aa - . ^-- r'"on -dldl"Qau J€r.\.,_,-** -. j* x:*_{.J>rr,r. i.,_7,1!,*,*Hl ..: -i, a4--^atoah 6": *,J);:"ffin v{l+,- ) J t^.r-, utJ _.. -r-r4 .... tl *e{bn/ "nwr#;y ,:,;rWW,rtrEzqqE & 'or6a-e, ,A."D fr;t4zs*wa,o*n**4- wlt +lzoti. ^*,;Xt;y,*o**, Gov€rsm€rit oflndia ELECTROMC MEDIA MONITORING CEI\TRE (Min. of Information & Broadcastiug) l0' floor, Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complo<, lodhi Road New Delhi 110003 tatl Subjee& CompLint from M Stitr Vrrmr & otheE rqritrrt tclcc$t of dlesed obicction.blc pr@rmm€ by Marsrlm pcf,s TV chrucl Refersnce Midsky of Information and Bmadcasting Lctter No. N-41015/33/2017- BC-m dat€d l8' Apdl,2017. the ponted mentioned i! the complaint Mangalam TV has It is stated thal 'goin This issues with the apprpval of the ADG, EMI'iC. ,M, Gary'&hy Rahul) Deputy Director EMMC ID No- I l0l l2l2014-Spl. Ref Pt-Wg /Dated:25.04.2017 c\I s 35.q GowrDn! oflndis Ehctoric Mcdh lt{miaoftS C.oFc of Iefumtion & &oadcastiag; - - *(Mio. lOE Ftoor SoochuBhanm, C,G.O C@ple( Ncw Dclhi I 10003 Newly launched Malayalam channel ,MANGAlAllf tel€can a p.ogr.mme TRUE SToRtEg under a sub ttte .srtur. lzhln ziiil.rJ.,tilrz _.h. t.rn"t day of the channet durtng *,"r. "-.rrr..on*.aJlf"fi"r',," Kerata T- convercation by State Transport Minister A, K 1"r*sasecndran programme ;;;;;';;.,""ousty. The includes panel dbcussion and oplnlon p"opl; and fro; varlous places of ditturent soctal status. In thls episode, "f .h. on 1/l/omen,c sa@ w|th rhe toptc 3 panellists named Sonia George"hJn;;;".r; (Aa*"tJ, (Sociat Srnt. S.naf,y" worker) and Dhanya Rarnan (Actvist). ,.r-;il ;;.1tu channel conducts n topr". tfte a discussi,oo on the telephontc- Saseendran conversllon between and an unknown wom11, whtch .ontu"ffy f"a to it'J ."ign.$on ot tater on the same day. lhe,:.nl:rister The channat kept aiirriJ*ai," _*"_*,", multtple times throughout the dav. ExcerpG from the progranmc ara noted bclow: Anchot (f 1:11:f ilwe are movll news;thepeoprewhorrcatth*.':j#;i:T*1lrTr.:iff.H;Hl;: those who stt inside the temple of d.rr.olracl shou .n"rllt r"l,n come, Kerala ,r," tours ,o wlll dkcuss aboutthts news. That shochng n"*" *"-ln t.ar nor". (f f :f l:32) letaphootc conuetadon bagtas (Onlf A K &*eAran s -Nov I ant In Gu for wta): - y*:1.*-h,,cr;;;;^;ff::#^ifEbcdon *o* | dghdl and @rrrfubtf hyo+ ttr, #:tr;:;;t:H;: mtnuu nop, put four fn in ny.na ft na Oh nyhtay, crt ny Ttddtc ryu. *e4, dtat do pu nat,rv sn/'''4, btb tt y y^:: vlity mtdt Why pu btms f " xke d,b? (Uatu k;s errd) Dtd f?u gat tt? Tcll m. nry tuat tul e pa..^."_z a"_iflii&Ii o * lour c{st and bat&. . la mc s 2ot , Ua.!'a Artt X. h btE s'5.'- hbrour "oj k ,rour e' .ttuk- ; ry -;;**"# X'rm.ffi# frffi"fr, y y mc pt my san (p,r'l.a'e.a lour3!#-i bdy ud XIZ ) p* u*e btvaan * :* * ; r"U;;&:ffi _ffift*";o;h;*;Xryb_ 3Lo Government of India Eh.tonic MGdlr .Molterbs C-rrt! (Mir of lofqngtim A Brcsdcasting) roF floq Smctna Bbnvrn' c.G'O CoDPlcx New Dclbi 110003 tto chtt@ b do It now* than I (He rrtttcrrrrrrd"e) Kw- trtrcb n*s to push ny '*i ,.kt b'etsa' b'b your but* and | *tll tty ';;;'Eti ,." ' Par la me "rt your f,,ttmcb' ttc ott pur bcte spd Psr th4ls ;; r" h*; na' fhcn 'i-i ft sto'll* than ftt* mo qutcktr and entoruln ,rt -o ,* qtln- tgaln- and 't* t" n ao-a and albt sone fmc' Ws do tt ii -do n "no dto (Uab t&ag ott"d)'' "gn*: 18 times on the sarne day' The repeat The channel aired thls audio recordlng counteB are glven below: ,6-o3-17 iTm-:t5:-iiia;tTGrst t lcc60 11:1&10 - 1'l:2i:10 (RePeat) 11:28:20 - 11:31:15 I455:tl8 - 12:5&43 14:29d13 - 1*!li!f0 14:55:29 -1*.57t23 15d!8:28 - l5:11O7 15:37:40- 15;tt0.4o t5:59:12 ' 16P204' 'te,Z+tr,1-tSr2g:de 1 5:58dF - 17OG55 17f2;OO - 1t.o6{4 17 :44zOO -'17;44255 lSdl&49 - 1&{4$5 18$5:49 - 18d17:07 19:59$5 - 2GO2:10 21241r'0,2'21:4;7.56 22.i6d,5 -22.29?& 2332d{l - 23:3531 of Traisport after the t€lecast of sexualty exPlictt convetsation However, days that the Minlster iii"ii". n. I S.*tndran, Mangalam channel ffnatly admltted Thc channcl's CEO R Allthkumar appeared on was the tarqet of a stlBg oPeratlon' ;;;;;il;;tsiio'on $Jisnort at 21:le:46 to 21:22:ss hrs' Hrs brrer .potogyrlogyon on u"nito{thebehatf o{ the channel ls glven below- "'' 1 ffi (tw, .t i 6l^1Ar1*o.ei-30 'Jry,I liin 3to1 Gov€@cft of r,'lri, Bhchelic Modtr Mouitoriq CeDt! JI hq-rt'on A Broaacasing; , 1f I 0-^"g.{i. Floor soodtra Bhawu, C.G.O Compfex New Dclhi I lO003 Thls ls an explanation to the n€ws tctecast-on launrhlng We had made day of Mangalam channel. some mistakes wbtle tclecasfing ifrli, t..,9* "-r*."""0 Mangalam i:il::1"'"::*::':#:l## i".i"-, who are r,ke th:,l*u"'"-r,'i,r.".i w" respoct crrucism. There jn- them and accept their was crittclsm m and w. d."pty';;J";.:t:;:?:"lal.medla other media houses L welt. caused especiarty women to the medta fd;ft),, lournallsts" ;i,:"::-tt-":was a sting oPeratlon ;ournalism. srnce i;;;;:;;;";"tt whlch ls a part of iden.tyof take the .the*";;";;dfl,il"j1.",:,E1"rTj:1;f i.j**,,:",:"J.* lob as it is betng alleged by.our ri"l* a-gli Pan ot the investigation. w. *T,i..g ".ii_ "a,,'o.]"irn.rnu"rs _"r" . r..j" ;ournJli*i"i".* up the ;::lT'fij:ff l'*?i5l'ff ."*"*irt.;-i;;;;:f llrl..',.pai"rurlob ; peciar ed it;iai ;;.;-;;#[J"f fi agarnst wrongdorng il,k. il#;ff T";"y""#,*f:*';rl and wrl contnue t" ao ,o. a9ainst the we ,."qu;"t ."If,"=". noa ," ,,"no channet for rhr sinsre mistake, ."J*;;;'n;;:V"Tooperaron RePeat teleca.t otthe apolog), Tlme 30-03-201t 2 r :1 *,16 - 2r225s GiETdGiasE 21:57.J8 - 22{O:26 (Repeat) 23:0&a9 - 23Oi;55 COMMENT: The channel had aired the telephonk sex conversation Saseendran speaking to of AK an anonymous lady, which is cringe-worthy distasteful. However, and the female volce has been *i.*cording b-y the channel. The audlo "On"Ol*'", aired clip contains expllcft words that verbat are sexual In nature and description of sexuat acrl whtch ** ,"p".,.Jiyi"ilJJi'.r,.ou9t Channel ou. ,t had earlter alleged that tf,e obr""n" .rri slxul " was-day. made iltent or thc audio by Mr. Saseendran to a housewtfe _h" minrster help. The ortginat veslon ;;;.;;;; for tetecbn by the channct ls rai the woman's ; ;;; o The content is extremely lndecent, obsccne and unsultable to be played tn a publlc space. By telecasting such neus that ls hlghly sexual in natur€, onthe very flrst day of its launch, channel screams nothing but scnsationalism for w.rrt of vlewe/s qndivlded attertion, defytng ethlcs ol foumalism. Therefore by atrtng an expltctt audio contalning AK Saseendra4.s telephonlc channel has apparently prcg]rtnm! ""* "o*oaaion, violated Codos _ 6t1xd,6tll(d), 6fl1(o) and 6ffl proscribcd under the Cabtc TelonHon Natwort Rutca 1994. However, the channel later lssued an +ology .egardtng the same. AC()RDING TO PROGRAMME CODE _ 6tll{4 ) No programme should be carrted ln the cabte s€rvtce which offend, ";.1;G-;oJi.":;;;."_. ..-__^-,,!s rv rf,l.,l'f, |Ir|sE L|Jur _ 6[1t(dl ) No programme should be crb:e servLe which conta:ns 111,1.,1 l. :h: a,,jtting obscene, defamatory. deltberate, false and suggcstlve innuend* .nA f,Ji'trrtl'". in the cable seriice which ls not sultabte t", unrestri.t"i p.rlii. J,i*.". unsuitable for children must not be carried in the cable scrvice at timis when the largest numberc children are viewing. of () ,lroejtd 30.03.2017 c6 l. | ' ,l'9 l.ir\' '''-) enr.'oloc ocmter rdru'lolqloi D/o. rrfi\flolqilai, 2s clloJe; (r)cau'lel oo8au'168, oJ,x,ino, o6rD6oc5oJlEc6o asloorocfogod, oJlgc,rgolod .jt.c., 66rDle)cdtloo, oilo;cr,ir.rnrto_t1oo (oocoo6ru@A 702569e52) toJ6,'16si 0€}66. uoqo'lt(Boa ol(n{ro)c('ro) oleld o..rrj) j -:' ocaoJol 6oo0cdr6ooo{, oo{eof aocruJ ctloloooooJloo. (Ucdl toldl(r)d (Dsddt t6oo l9o, 2oo or&ldlaoi torocoo cru"oloc 1 eJcdl gl aodolen(TDorol(i cuoilo ocofiu€oco1@rc6nl. oocci ooogo sl.c[I. oJcoroi ('Do,lcqBc leoot.fr(r)lcA (ru6,qJ og)(\l)lgd 60 dc.dcdgd 6oofl qaceJl o.Jgl(ml. 6rocoi ojkrJcorjlo) o)lq 60l o6mlocqtl elslo6D (ruoaoo o)cooul:rl clolmo)c6(ml. t. ruod o0(118,6 cn:rdcdgd escello)los ecooc@1 rucB,l m1ooru1 tolaloroooto oglo .itf)o (dJo,t Gc6rDl(m6)lo, gqdcllJl ooslodt ceceil andq.,.nd (!olan6,loo6l(ml. Kot:' 1I r[.,:L I 3bs :l gEl.rt&Coo 3, Cgtcer'l cslcd6jil (U@o{! 0S.1L2016 O1(D6ilo'@i Oo(,€o aoC6rrflo(t o.lrCqDlos ec('OCqD'l t@1. 00.06. (oqo1t(sni (1.'tc )ooJAeog paldo{r oelgtoo}q 6oagooeJloc@1 a(r)o:is [email protected],lo odey('irs pp6,c6)(ml. dlcmld &tod .Jl(rJ(ru qoo.{ro @god a$(@l (rul@6!lc d-6l)@larlac(q)l 6oJmD6 a s1 alddlcd os(ml o4t(ID6.J9oE toJo.l 6ccuo(on(6 6cerl&uE slo.Hcatld eo)gl old poll6ol6@lo, ooamcd dlarco8 s1@cot aodlololoc{o,il p@ld6rlojcoi arDor@Jodsl&@lo 6,-d6,l. gol(m(tdcod sEta.l6c@o ooo(m orofiD c(rrc66fl poldo)6o)lo, tololl 610(t c(t)oo .firl ( "€)ool olo.rod c I 3t l- t4 (Tuofiuc@l 6rurocdcq8 6@c€ooo oos(mcd ojlaB(o @cto)ocq) elcjld qDctc) doloarlo, pdl Qrolm dhfiuGroild oJlerc'gc0a 6(0l oJlcBUD mftologlos odogmCl oplao(mlo, ogilqcncosc'do ((olele(o)lloel adcr$4l' €Fol(ruo cnq.dcdS oo-qlm@1c}c{qt1 olola(mc o6rm}o cu$ 6oocn 66aeooc(6tDcg aud dtrtcot oxn'd efid a&@g(U|o1d cndlol6lj1a rDlcto 64j9fm o)lcu6)laq0dd cscotloeld tolUd(T)6BoE oOGd oocot oldofm@16(r) &ldd 6@l .,0146 6tgooc6occ'c6rit gfid o0oo! oro5r[lDa.Jc06 sE6r(oco.oo GooJlos find6oo5 domlo' oxto'tmd &lslodllo o{ood oo-F(otlo166l6ocdfi, mt(B614o}5it . d{)(mlo 06)(rr'.|5 €D(tqooo ooarDlo 5roofiE oDl(fd oolo 'Jo6turd'l' g(ril ctDslo6oad oroleo|lo, o0)ool o@cdld oo&o4i 'soa'l "Oool oofid oo(mlo .!os6nD), socal sloo6 drotsold 6locni aoJccdocog c"ne1o o'Jcdl4l. €ac.dcd ctbol slolt6'oco6 oc 5. 5looo8 plc ojkloo orocd adr).rcrloo codldlgn- doo(6 ol(rt6,c oao'Lg(Itki olocotl o.Jsfirro ao(m)o sbc(ld)aotuoE.€Dru (oto.Js[. (nflp.e. oototlg- oorEoci cEru(olo.d "o]mcad "Oamcg sl6(olo, olto'krD o.rc(rxd (11016{00g, oxnlop oooLrr 6. 5loc(6 occrmtaocotl @gol&Qtlo, "4nt'lad o.0.ooo ao)o(ml&olo ooldol- oc(Dorttb o$.rroo o'liaoo(6 mo(6 "Ooal t ro:loo ojl€ildol6@lo, (rud ooc(m6" oardod too'locdlgo m)cdo(ll .fiDl olet$oco&ccri' a5reo@mlo, oooal o(I,qu "o){mlq (D66flrlo:ldol6ercoi', srDc(IE odJcenmfld .'Joo@'l cr6taloo(mlo 6na.dco0 .$om ducGDxrndld 6n(o.l6coo dmlo "ro6rurol. tddl ,..6 aa$dfootaD! oaJEoloomlo, oocDcd auoeongJdkt "O(rt lo, @dldd oolo?dcd aolo6rDdb4o onddoooa(mlo, oocd 8o.sD "OocD ) ooelE4o odddi' oocoomlo d]o(m 6bd(qtl9Aq.. l '1 . ..1 ;i : \ '' \" !' r -\5.: c(r)cg gdocoJo .lo{qtleqD}q (I)1sa,0 ac!5rEd' odqcon €Odl(nij o,scro:l@(Dffi qst&{olo o.Jd{D}' dl m}o€edrdstD6B(d "{Da(mcg o{Dgilo{csBc roarlrari a.Jcdloo}6(Dp ooco6 dl mrecrg "6ynf fl)G(6 o'}sdocdnrt o.JdolSlqd ool(m" om@l6olo ooJdol. 6b@o(T,(oooqrbld a.|.peftn ld.ilcradltds6r,oocfi €EorroJoXFl. 6Gtol6coo rtcood 8. tor(Dilo€los dl tdl.ul(6rDle{rA gflojoi sDl@cfii(o,ao 3tt D tojeconllo, Section 66 ot |rformation and Technology Act 2000 toracoo 6lgaoo{o @ildrrc6"oo4oc6ri'. t jo1 a;go o".rdoil1ggad I a(r)o'lgto, opdlo,)os oooo6ou6t 6.!oc6n8 o;arcnolootlo oDoorcd oosu6rud adcenmt 6)'lolo.mffoo{oo ca< dorollofler;o dl (olaooo tororlosa 6190 o"JeyolsleEd ollm.rtoro c.jcerlrn! cr;g.oaE cFoila(Elo:letleito, €E@dt 5ru.(,l8Jclog*g g.lo caca(Dlqrlos €o0t eco oJoluJkdLd o.'lslfir@o6nY. . I Zl.1 696(ood su.frlooooqF a6osdtl@)G o(o(utcEao,l omto@ oo(oerld ru.tfoobJ (ol6)ledoeooiloo cognlzance .loslod ols6 cEd.Cb{n (|a46.drooflErp'iq G.gc6o nJdrro (lildkDri a}scdl teoo $6 (3) c|6l.J Gtbcoo ca('$ oCl$d oa:dd corncryno c)soro1 ct{oo (nsdrgl&(6 ooaodocegl(mo1d (D'lolor(I,(Ioo{oo 6om)5Dd qojoetlmjld oo{ g@looo{dao6orDooc# opfutl m&!t6dl4 d6oeEfrn! 2d7-ocfd oo(olld @m)o 6-co d'Ml ,64 .oddl@oconi/orc.t aod olhblgJ o.(IrIdDtdDaoa oo6q mdbjh4o onuo|3cr,Gdbrlo o.!€iba('rEc€o 0oo:holo ou6roJ)oc6yml. r . I - ^lvl,g ) "(xEdldoconE/o$dl doC8aC€ol(ID coole(a v 03.0..20? d (rrlClojl oi6d' cldato, -""",iq<\O* ".!ld' mro&dl60i mjl5njl 6o(')€q @o'lcgBc aod.ffd {D(nrc(I))6, o'lo}ormflooJloo. AvJdiun' V ln Lha, o{ chr, of ccot (o cro ffi;rill., o!o'y^:oz6'r 2q gedrs' *4;ln7)9 oltiz,)ztv1r a'ntc5l6l;mnt'#.' .t aulS tst..r, (loora,",.^ i mnt oovrgo 2'a5l''$ jou oada'fr' nnea"b egceSfe:bx Goooc{l Au$o'f'fu't @o?tztoens 15 -inubts 4*"r\balk e"oztlob'""' c""Ai * 616, Pt'Pytul'"Y'e n,,*5lno'allt6nne* 9n">o!a"-' Q"#IA *o,-f @t61od bdol' n'ncA tav ;:;;;:; A"4, lnb<,lv('d a6'92tTe' Q'o'P9'A# Aara sci) nt*"; JA '*'too@' 'poelec? Xffi";i,r*",-7na,bs, ".Ai:; o'"!J. L;:!, wc nn%frb)st aa,notz r2JtPl4ltt>tnr''^;:#r" cl-.aaly-t ^^'Ae,rJ sttt I "q:crL *tr" T;A; q^ 'Y'onr -,n%-*'eae B s a'ee, ili,^,| na*@aetmt';t 'k d 6tbla, o o 6l*> oooo Z";"Ai5ia, o'aA'a[ffi$, azDrlr? alott;tl' *"1-: ?'t'-'' z tu E'ia'eo T; 4i { ;;'q*,!*% o' / u>ool te ',ZLZTA)4$)97 nt'"t 6$l rtb "s riltafl'Jo Ai6l-rr'*' ? " fr:t.^K "",,,'J)u"6 Aso'* !luo',t'^:Xu:i mnvb ^, s.<.^. ffi uh' 6J(x*^''so)-?f I <-:> I r n e{ls>oran5lo,ra, o"v,*i D,{lbA c,ooedfi. noorh g6bnro' t)*&cch fittr"b maA ,wgagnr o-,;5!SlAnnm honcr9 zJoqaro2Aa''-' "-t* cat*'taat ;;t & *laE* Po(ct 22f,1 "e.g W6* .Ntfta-o ztaa+g',-oln',,n'l' dDaqr' 6bA; barrtc'ot'* ,r-* *)t+ro {ole'o'ocA 9alcakai u to r>ntW otntrt' 6+tCQr>Dzana*;'::-ffi ,trfttt *P* Qil'? *" ilory,ngWort ,rt M arrAi oto,r/'4' L* ott"n2g /ltt'"L*'* ;,UOal. ,b#1. rr*4c& cT*VJo ry>no c|3u'"1 t>o or*,e. cnSVoi Ae,or^fr ,io-' 9lu"b ozttrr|' c?oonc$ no+ tgz'cao ;;--oac$ t*o*"€14' *rftao *tt'ttrtg, 5lnnn 6*o t2todo x2t6 -:P'91a*s *r* 51,,*n4 nA Aic c rn Th !' "ffi' , : ;4 f st.*g* '3,2i!*TAolJA" *,ae 7un'> ';A;;:'61'-" J u'n't'**{uo'toot*a'6 *tomg ' &rrlplalnb Opctlo-" u ^n:g'o litl''ton'eltc,n,* bonto t'zotff) c'o1,* or,41"i)oenhl '{^"i,51-;;;''' u Q' ot&'ioDo'f,16-caQt a'tottg'- ititr"t" " *rr'!"c -s"A *t'esa'nn' ffi g"il ,'. ,, - - F",,k*'.,.93 qy , 'z7L .9- 6e'oA^i Cai oatsgorano at nao^lotlv' ;;;ttzna'.a* AAa' o-66tu'H".'to ;^J 6l"et 6lA'b' t'tnaa locto- 7;; ' n>ot s't>"* ;;i;io26rai oa:roocintd m,"o :"ff X **ntn'Nn:",:AS*3,t8;*"! 4ono "nfld ^r. - glfS':'#"^; : 3 #' mffiu i',,y =-73 -a- " ,u-r$ A (ttu', ?hone C'€'o Mct"44, ,>.61 lolecast oad'd' nar{l ,1514 ea$' ooil k)/. nu dv'tt'tt N asi I a' ))aot 9.A'J *nl 95*d t-3rfl *q!tt|* bptcd fut ,trxr: bnld $: rru'r fflcortr \ oYff' ^ .+\ ho**) Itl-r Nasila Nasimudheen A -T l: : r'. "tne*rl*t ooopcro:'lcetod @crr'locorcol ro1o14}clooi ror"loo c'r61tr"o1groH. cororno crn] m"l amq,tlen do6f D o . 5.3c Go 3 1o:crra "{) cnrnco cnorojlarlo 6'JcG@oo jonDd c s3 eI aoY a oo; cmcol- a co; s crurn1m,a gl o lo.rrolanae gloccul gc ofl o',losr; o. (gtao(D 3 5)66) "rc ffDrcloo orGoilcol;o cl5rorcfloa5 omQplo gotccolcuflgj mco14poooloY. crrlmoer3o eggoY aog o".rerrEai5ilonem'. cncog Grocotomollo ololae;o;cli. oocll61ocuar1er;o pQ@BercD aol c".ncni$ gA$oflffi1d m'l ao;o3o 6Yo3oA cn'locrn c"s1{ gq oloer;aorc o5'rD ff D". Gr6oo 3 o€o oololoro oIl gc a; o ooaoronrloo"E eacsror'l crjlocm onsifl ... 3t.If2rr!7 xuroJol(dqpsa..rgddm - a.{l3l -3&?^*,,*rFo.(n5t4 cc.osl (nauEl olhicrEJtgJl.Ogro.,. (i(i,riai:i ir:s atlrtl,]tsErls'i crsrrau{gR FE$&ci A N lvA, l,{RE _U Augrrst 30, 2017 ,\# ft ! ffi--F* P0litics Business Crime 6C(ItnD€6)COllOileqOs |.ITET , ooulpGroilr6''q+Sl crllv3rm3! .. t!E[ .-d|t .. oon f$qFlf 6.dfi; .OSco atoUtgo. Ig[ o.rEBod{dd;-e.tg alcmeilom o6rur$4d D!-.-g@s €rrlC el coloe.r0o0d atlAod.dtg.tt #s*?*TSJ,i"os,nr, tffi o(ndS crffDauE rrm6ronDedcs0 orcoilocoild o-.Ff €arD6 -Ea oou)po mil.g.e mmtletcartos o|oro|8aaaoorqh ofl$oa roroil eaemcore,eil,tl.. l.ao casli dd.rb ryr.i .tA0st 18.2017 -aadaacaSlrLddcdmt .nfldm, A(n.ddattrrt a|5 a olb0 ooaDcot{ aod .oC.$ 6'r.t-8o islu:" .lEt*Podd arsaaGq d&rnmld.rt ixr/otrr2o17 ef,mQr.stJ.li lod Elos oo@€[lr' lct ..{i "ftjlmj'-b^.rg""tt"lbdrooog14a.-osllnmr|el.Jr(D(rEJrgr.o0gjo.. ffio-raenmrttnomr ffiffi_ ctcoroudad c(udo o0orc.oc addrr.;o@" oc.n.d.B! atu.{rtaD Cu"(r|lloar.eard c H.l.e0oafl ecqs @aFot4l 689 d6pm(b"Jfo":o"('Eo'D16od "rxrdl ts.*Jcad$lael otldqggora oilol@@sd "{(rq(Ut o"rng" ac o(|rtla@ (s.*ild qtugoceF,rD cdltocDdooog "odrt otsgadl@J e,Jce'o$oood nmG0.Sotloel "roofid G)qooosqorD go@ cemlcei l OoaiJ brd6$l(o,.{a, corntloo4c 6ef,|.drE cr.at.rtraoo6nre{o: aaoEo; aEo..-o0oro 50 qhraAoaaoo 20o qbrqtoso{l. crD€lauf q.Uo (twnD@6dl oanosuel t!do(!li.d arxnlleJ ql.xl') cdcdo&lo dddr* c.rD. ot90d, -orardt o.{rt€o dafid aera@} edE a6,1.odle& 6oidk&i (ru I {.J:fi:{ rorodnD@o6lil rxnieto{os otl$cd dd4laoo It$lla NrEhudnaair 5nts,i oo{/Eot6tloelddt gotl6)(Doo} o1o'l90omctr ofloo (8o(Oorn4(u,g nofldnmco)'loior8 6lDfin@o6tl6xDmlo mJencool5)o)(m)oclc6'l6ogo6r"dror- 616)s mdoon d(ftl4dt? 6rd1 6r(0$ o.rgc(6 (8odt noogstdosoo. @g0oor ogl€eola[os (oerctlo8 6rxg) 065] oe8t6*Fil€'(ogorn96F(d: ac... G6o6)cBo(r)o)o... oGP I u" I lG.nlrsrr a S[de I- Ptid€€9,9v esd('l(|lterdd6.{',8. acl@aIlgsqAerrdr{Fraard. axntei6d padcd o"s€o..F(rreM aql "OOd ^ra.tnotc6tr{€9dn c,rceq. (r6od€d aoo,cole|" (nel6c@o(ot Strd "Oml "Jdl@5{rxD €6.nnd (B6.!co acollofun egouqoroll "odq6r6ccrf. "o6ni ts+iJ Z.-t::X'i'l d. mAd!@o a/ta|l,|.fty odar€6 -Jaand ccnrddetcc.d(nxFof 46@el doocalolDod..ri a$Del.ert axdelo4o6 o.p$o6tDd. 2 artcfia(,E 6rdile{€t o..l.qo. @qq ..(ot6q...cFd6d 6ndrS delasoroaoo? o"{rrgedlarc@t tdlo|deta(,r" ooo oqoarcat AE(nenc(I) 6q rdlonn o 6ao6rd ooddd "O(mfC o 689 You 1{.y Lik SpoM.d Udr by T.b@t Hot Plctur"s Of Esh. Gupta From Inatagram Hor Xom Yyas SlEkld Altrr Chocking H,or a3ni BrLnco Thls Will take Your Child away from Smanphonos Watch th. bsst of Hlndl lovies by loinlng Pdme at iuEt Rs.499,Yoarl Poople In Emakul.m Arc Racing To Get Th$e lnvlsiblc Hsaring AIds Watch: lhe cool cola adveitlsement lhey will never run In Indla (besauso it will ottlnd moralE) Thafs How You Find Cheap Hotel Dsalsl I$$$) i Experts shocked, as new ttlck aavca onllng shopPers lhoussnds ln India '' ra.grDri.hzaFdt ||o. re.dn 3ro &&m7 , ea-€alirtrfdrrr..l$.atE d:d !a'''', ' Arrrvs"wa= -g l.-?r'nA{l rbtf r palnf alt Phre ghre tho ephone lp dsmt-AlnesrnAstEr.f 2 mGr{es r|bry-pd|-rD0y@ TqyEllB'og|tELcom Fd, iLy la 2017 rt i:59 pM PrGe giw d'. rabpl'B.p d sfitAt*r. As'* Ex. d of ilr.rkn Tcr.*bh ct,"rrd rf avda tEk I| 6ruofuOCmoo€ mcd, ffi* ffiffiffiffiHffi eu(:ru)6h€ @aqonmtfu,c, (ogt.o6 mta(ol(rsdno I @dl_tol{pc4;, f"sd"rno o.r o'kumboeLgnrxd qmu ffildad ctlosJqfuc'odlolcru. ;}odlidtxxn6niffiiliffi'ffi'lllflr*.r"", ffi#H* ocutgo t"Jcldolom SECRETARY 38'l Ftntpt qd- Ert.diFtrtdEltD.aSirt-.rt-, ffiffisracal|(dber qrx oflluo{orndm x o..{ocdr ffiffiStrUg(lt)Ccen"ictfiEor (q|@oenej cDellonsi orocdlol('rl. r*fu((trl1 trdl rddtBo(n on$mdi oldB,lodld qortol[* eo@gps alos oleroo|gnqcu(Dlo@ "ro.}ibr oom derqp ommtkuor& fiiloo "Jflr,el4rt oge aer@m1d mOO)Cd qofiFg aolccxrra olel "ocdtqfil ogbcnno(n @{m@ rue'let/a Hffi.lffi "gt *rucaqr4lm@'ororl.r"o"a"ffiffi @l}ndt drocd oujl^olgld mrmrrJ@nuE€d. oafi@'--* oalllobrpdmcn(Urp ae.harrrgm'ldho oarc ocnae{mlae,ad o€e,ldqamE I o,ryd. p@dm mlerumle{Sg o.rriott€Ixt odDaDo gfgr_rlIFrD6EoEqo oolcduqnmndlo(qo-oJouo rudq)ldilasrlEe ffi#ffim|elllqm'nlmD o.eouo oo).oopqnm lalro-d rd ndd.il [,'-l 3?2_ A*"tn**= l flerrs or sina l - nur ro.z gurJ,olE'g lii ro. e oJir*on, raal2ott - ts-re'rt colrnrrioi U:41:13 .,^:9ont' I ,'l Cl Kocf,i-30 "7F 2- B D E H 30 91m2srs995' 919&t7q)18r! 36 124'.mLl 09:19:37 CAIT-TN 86 8618@367s276 31 1,25159!5: 37 9l*rm0l8z r8{rt-20r7 2l:58:2, a|.L{ur 99 861sUI1675275 912t251599t 91984D0187\ 38 19{}1-D1' 07t27t42 B[:!N 312 86180q)3675276 t3 9lSa7{X)187! 39 l9{1-2017 07:33:31 a!-Dl 136 51g4136'/5275 {o 34 91ru2s$9952 91St700187! 3l{1-2017 06:3.t:3t cal!o(,T 471 E61qEB675276 91n)251sE)5: t642-2'r7 18:56:09 cAIr{UT r28 85 n803675276 zll 'l9{7nlm t l K L tl I 4 5 Cellsite fdrert{aj|ErA fffilddr€ssj Ladhde_, o.€ihde. 6 r(H19363-r$|62 M.rooruxLaHY (Generdl Seorbry SaLfi Lzr965 76.9524 7 4041+3097912 PADII{IATIEMfiXU fri€aldiri TalldcKalna 8.58214 26.8465 8 to,t19363.47532 O'ERSRIDGE Isdrd &ddiq,tl.G.RoEd 76.9474 9 8.,18997 {x1}363-18741 IHYTC OTJT{OSpIT ld Tg.iist tlome, N€r!, A 8.,18786 76.9548 10 LA lt {x1936Hru2r FTCTOM'q.A { m Tqvers,ltEarporE 8.,19145 76.95:23 t2 {(X19:15:l-187,11 THYK(ANftO6PTTALA LatTacist fboE, llew $ 8.,r8786 76.99t8 $4193&32{197 l4 {x1}a}t7912 PADIITTATIEIii'((J triyadturn TalddGdna 8.58214 76-A$S r(H19$t7912 P DIIIYITIEnI((J Irn 15 a.*un Tddclelna 8.58;I14 76.W5 {x1+3€D32-6197 16 {(Xl+39}32{197 L7 ,t041+39)32{197 18 .r041938032{197 19 ,o4193097912 m PADIII'ATIEWIOO friya|*un Taltlcl(adina 8.54214 76.a55 ,m419353187,t3 ItflXX 2L nfiGPIr t falToqist ]fodE l{ew t 8.44786 75.9548 .m41938,32{197 22 ,t(X l$380325198 {041}3&}33- 1874' IHYXI(AflJHGPITAL 24 ldTorrilt thne, Nd, U 8.,18786 76.9548 {04rs3&}33- 1874' ffYXKADi'HOGPIT^|- fal T.uitt lkne f,|erv di 8.,18786 76.9W 4{X1+38033-1874i I}IYXKADI'HGPITA 26 Lrl Touist tk'rne, l{ew t 8.48786 76.95,A l(X1939)3!187,1, I}fYXMDIU}IOGPITAL 27 Ld Tqrist tlfile, l{e! r t 8.,1876 76.9548 4(X1+38t132-6198 28 {x1938032{197 29 {x1+38032{197 30 ao{r+30t7912 PADTI{IATIE4UOO 31 frivardun Tald<,lGdina 8.58;I14 76.8,155 {{X1}363-.10962 32 TVt't{oTuKuzt{Y (GerEal Seday Sotafi 8,{965 76.9524 {xl9:t097912 PADIRIATIEI'IUXXU frie.r*rm TafilqlGdha 8.58214 76.8,155 4{Ht}30t7912 PADII{IATIEHIJ(KU 34 fri€|rturn TaldclGdina 8.58214 75.8,165 4{X1}363-18741. HYXI(ADI'HOsPITAL,A fal Touist |briE, I{ery S 8.48786 76,95,i8 3?g I K M $4193(F'7912 PTDDIIATIBA,XXI' 36 frnzdun Talukfrr B.5E2l4 768,165 {!4193}979r2 PAOII{I/ITIEMJrc(I, 37 rriEilrn Talfrr.dE 35&114 ,63465 {x1}3097912 PADIIT'ATTEIiITXI(U 38 f.fuEfiturn T.e&|Gd,tr t582r,f 76,8,55 {|4r9:!O57912 PADDITAflE}TX(U 39 ftr'.rttrrn TaAlgf,iftE 8.58214 7611465 {r1$$s5192 {o PADn{X'nrixiffiE RCYClgvH IadE, B,5r,l€ 75.a8!) ,lo1t936it-18741 rHYr(ADrfiffi'EA 4l Lal Tqrilt H.|tq s t t"irE785 7n9a$ 3rG tl o P tlll ;t I -----r-'_l_ t-dcd[ibj ntsl_A PP PO a{x19363-47581 |(r19,100671807( PP 7 I {&r+305-7912 m419400671&)7t PP p? {0+19363-1474r 4(Nl9{d1671Eoft 9 {t41}363- 18741 {}t19400671$7( PP 10 ,to41+363{7}:12 {x194006719}7( PP 11 {H19400671g)7( PP t2 m41$363-18741 4041930t7912 .10419{X}671l|}7( PP {o4r$30t79r2 |()4194m571807t PP 14 {o41930t7912 l{O+194067!80n PP 15 {(x194{X)571$7t PP t6 404193&)326r97 404r*mt7912 4O419,1(x)571807( PP l7 $41910067lCvt PP l8 40/tt*380326197 4041900671807t P9 t9 4(r193&)32{197 4{XIq30t7912 {0419100671$7( PP 20 (x19363- 18743 40419400671m7( PP 21 {x1930t7912 4{X19{00671m7( PP 22 t(x1930t7912 $4r9{00671$ft PP 4(X1936118741 {x19{0o671Ctn PP 24 {041}38033-18747 {{x194006718t7( PP ,(H19363-40962 {041940671&}7( PP 26 4041938033-187'fg |(H19i006714)7( P 27 404193m32{197 4(X190{b71fl}7( PP 2A 4041930'm241 a(H19{n67lU}7( PP 29 40419305-7912 ,l{X19,$06719}ft PP 30 4{X1}30t7912 40419400671m7( PP 4{X1S353{0962 {x19400571$ft ?P 32 404193017912 {x19,t00671q)z PP ()419305-79t2 {}419{n671807( 34 4(H19363-18741 {0419400671m7( PP 35 3Y/ tl o P {x191F7912 |(r19{fi'r1dt7r PP 36 {Hr+a}}79l2 o4r.9406Z1qlz PP 37 {(X19'9}5-7912 l04t90o67ta)71 PP 38 $419ars7912 {}4194(m7lc, PP 39 .o {o{1}aF79i2 {xr9{{x671S7( PP {x1+36&18741 {r19aq)6.r1cm PP 41 3v< ',' ? art *; Ei d-z 3 (} 9 ei F :E il""'*^' ed ii 36 ; i! g ae t |l 0d6 o E.r toit o !l 6 9- ? ;-3 g :€ z o Fto Ed o "eE a E - _O_ O eo 6 ;: o, :t !: 9 o ri .aag. q te evoa a :'2 o 1:.1 iU ,,o - : i:' ,. q 11 . <; nt I i(xocniro )i; ti- 311 a l : ? a1 ?'t '., i i o: i ?-;, .:, ;: 'E o at :" o ,7 :- o o t, r 0." ., ,lt i' ar : I .. si 1l r +i. ) =9 ."H jso i'i,' i€e E E: € ie - i'rh nRd it uE$ ,- o 5: i BC! :. 't, t l lt,,) I a oeF z EB ,i EE t{'t : E iaE^. I ta -c6 9E P' ri t! EF ! 3 o o*" t-o. . . . .i ; ; ,:., tu.1t€s.,!r'.,9U ar. ^1,'r. ... ,t ..i r !.E I o OB€ Eo o rFs6i . EE /'i5 +* . ,1 EE I . ! !E 3t _a: E5 ;9 aea* :r ooi t1.' gtc; i:I "'* 4toXt"iF e:-' Eg ig- n I *r; i i{ t;t F t EtgE I at\ a e . / @ g t*"rn, = ./ ! .. O z< t E-F ' _,,..,qrr..r!,er Al ,ta I t : ' *..I lfi""'x/ EE@ 'u tt^", otl o !r ss t *"^*" 6g : li o :r zr '1 9; a * :I (t;: Ei€ ':.'. ; ir E' lt6 o $ q!! 3 i !!E 2 qt e t *C ti uc it !* 'O: Q' !tF9 pi2r 2e . :78 | = rir Kochi-30 311 x5: * _. . *, .. '+t :...rr i.: s'fdro.*ta, I E.! :l il ".' EE I 5; €Ee ti 5S I 22 cd\it - I EF@ u€€e :ir I E gs 2z I ; E ! =; F -' ogE E reerrn € I ,'h 5 : ia ! go :E , 3c! Eil-9 3.i E o.Eg-- t a 1 'It , ,'e4!! a Ol' i l, 1';'.,1',,lj4ai.-y,,,ry:urO*r. .*a-o:, e' O -- .|i I :o ri a E :1 o$ ftt EF. o ga i'" I Eo n f. .! in 5 *d ,5 bIXoctr;-30 Jf, -'z-.2 2 A xrvelurue' - X --' d N.{s Brwdcasr€G Alsocietion Cd.ofMc. of Indir Itttrli6hcd Algu5t 2m8 *|.tlrtrlrnd Cyrsfggoo hdia gqarll0recr ? Jh: { ro ill i6 cirizco& rhc righr ro tuc sDccch, which right has bcln lib€irlly c.nsr&d by oE SuFm€ Col", as .6."p"""i"r-iiil d," I|lcqoD or p|!8s, ttrt atso tlc.ighr of thc citiz.o io tc iofqoca of nmir of poUc mqncnt 8nd cooem. 2) Ttcftadii€atrl of a Freisc d@rcy i, th..ccoutt.f iry ofsll ia, ilsti&tioo6 to viz 6c poqlc. Ir is L' F ryTd$ T'.r"ig* ui@rric tu tc a#w-rcv-oHic aoO flouridr AEcdoE Eust tivc iD ure ans pcople t .d ,h" ag{ir6t att .ntnlprs to sh.€rt rhc rutc of trw. Iicrnoqrcb""d "i**t;;tl"-il;;4il "ieil"", trot Ectrltr rccmt qEols ;;';"dry o of Erir sch ., cqE h( .lso by irri ii_" ;"il c.ulcd by cgrlgidu oqqrio ed .hosc of pov;. Expcilg ,i, t-,rllaf"]i*'r,* boc-ooc pLc of th! lro6r ioporun rolcs of d n"r" iltrq ff-hrt;6r;;;" y+ *hy ych rld pcanrdiotr hrs ttc Fmi6c..";';;;;;6-,J*O fa tbosc r,to do trd havc accccs to tc lnlt mcou rr witrf ot hcrscy giving 6 olhasisG, Nod th€rn a !c|r!e ofinvolvcma* in tire proccss of govcmancc. 3) bdir ir tbc r9dus taFn d.oo.n r, dcDqgnebicaly Edtcd bv divcrritv i'| r€ngron. tangutgc 8nd crstc, atd uodcitbbdly har problcns rtat arc signitcaiOy pocutiar lo it Yct at thc samc tiEc, it eharr certarn commou valu€6 with ottF vib(arr d.mocripics, rld ooc of ttcm ir brtcirg rhc frEed@ .i t, p.*" *t ilii"f"g fn p* cbck rld b.hces ft.f scrl to irrrill I sasc of ,rspoasUfit!, ua ro pivcot iUrse of this ft€edor4 sithor thc "chilting cficct" thrt *ould i.pui.i6r-"f iliiG#l 4) It is thc duty of Ecdi. ao fr.p thc citi?@y iof@cd of thc starc of govcrnacc, whictr Eoody puts it !t odd6 with rhe ce rrblishtMr A 6cdi! rl"r i" .G.or o-"rpoo. t"-frp*" i! govchrnerr lnj io Fblic tifc camd obviously bc.g"i"r.a ty lact s-;;;.:,;r"ra crcdibtity. Ir is | frldm€otrt portip or i.eoAoi or frtc fioor govcromeanl +".i',i" .*cs ,r"i t cmfirt in dc Drdlr of ""-t-f - aE s*ocn .;r"hp ;E;"t cncmicl I lh..sfdr f.ltr upo! rhc jqrmrlis, ,LJ" choc.ks od-safcgurrds, r""fo"i* il"ti'Jt.*r spocific to th. clcctolic ncdia, ihar caa acfoc ,h. Jil; i' would cof- @E to thc bfb6r.hnr.rds ot E {iard" u.i j.-.fird";fo;f;"#i * o.dlr itr thc disch{gc of irs soLDn castibti@rt &ty. 5) th.rE 8e of sE|f goycm|lc€ cyolvcd T*ls in oth.r coutrhiG wto brye sc.n atr evotution of thc ctcrronic mcdh inchding rhc n ws n cda m;- bcf-.; ffiJra in bdia- Thc Emrtablc ftrtuE of !X 66c dodcls i. .cff gor"rouo, aJ J#',H"g oy a "jq ofits p.c.s". " 6) Tbctr arc.undorbtcdly limiufionr ia aoy nodcl of sclf tovc.lrEcc iD wtic.h .orDplioce is cotirely votunlery. Ho*cver tbi, d"* ;;ggoG;";;;;k ." 313 iDeffectirc, Their cfhgy floss frqn th€ f.rt th.t thr basic sirrtlg$ of I ncws d|{rncl Lic"1 in its cr.dibility, ftom which flos. its ibility to iliuGocc Fblic otirie. A ccnsurr coanating ftom a jtry of ic pc.rs qoald indirpdaHy dc.t tb c&ditrility of a d.|t!Gl. B.Eidca, sncfr r Foccss i6 noa witt(d its lcgal r{mmc{dotr6. Ooc of thc iEpon.llt d.f€a56 ro civil aDd.deitr.l actios (boscd o dcfamarioo) is 'f.ir c@Ecdt" ud bora fid. arlldds io |rEavcl the uuth- The ditr rr6ce bcrwcel iuco|r.cy od fdsdrood lrcs matry r timc i! tic tlotilt. A cted s.ring ir h!&n of Gtlblisbcd guftlcliE ocrld h{dly dcfcrd its rt|olivc3 a sEggrst rhd it w'r r.tiIg f.irly, if ia is ccndtrld by r jury of its !ds. 7) Tbc iotrdcttucc by ltc goyc(Drncnt, bovcv.. wcll iDf.oddc4 rr@ld iq.ril od jost this nctbod of ird.pcodcrt jauulism" hrt &c vcry DtGss of irvrdigcioq itserf. tr thc.Efcr b.s bccmc iEpcrstivc lllt thc ocws durcls lay doeo gui.lcli6, Foccfrral s.foguads ed G6trblish . body that wqrld -t as r wdcldog ard r gricvrrcc r€drEssal fqun. sE'cuoN - r FIJNDAMEIIITAL PR,INCIPI.ES | ) Ptofe3siq|ll clccltotric jotttr|sli$s should r4.pt ad Endclstad th|t thcy opc.rfc rs trusG6 of prblic rod shoul4 lh.rrforr, Ert it tbcir missiod to sc.t lh. ud.!d b trpdl tt fsirty *,tlb inlcgrity .Dd iDdcp.rdcoca Profc6si@d iErDlirts d|({ d !t Dd foUy @|r ablc for thsir ortio& 2) Thc purpose of this co 3) Ncws chrlrcls rccogoizc |trl lh.,y hrvc . spcciat rEspo.ciblity in tbc Ertt r d adhcring o higb stradrrdc ofj@ldi5m 6imc |tGy tayc ttc Eoet potlot inf,ucocc o Fblic eilio- Thc brood Firciplcs @ whicb thc osss chlDrcls shq d ftlctio st, tbcrrfoaE- as garrd hrrdraftf.. 4) Btoadca*crs sbt[, iD prticnlr, corul that thcy do Eot selcct rrcF8 for ti. F4|qc of cith.. Fmtiry 6 hiDd.ritg cithc. sidc of &y couovcrsi.l poblic ire. Ncws &.l| !d bc sdcdcd cdRign d !o FuoG rry p{tictrla bclicf, qinio 6 dedFs of oy iDtrr!$ goup. 5) The foodamatal prpoce of diss.rninstiq ofrtcws in r dq||ocf{cy is to cdrcde sd ilforn thc pcoplc of tc h4coiags in thc country, so th.t t pcoplq of &c c@rry utrdar8tsdd sig!ficent cvcuts rrrd fo(E lbcir orn cdclusi@s. 6) Broadcartrs sball cosrrt a firU aDd fsir p(licltatioD of rlcws as fic s.m€ is thc frDd.mcatd trspoodbility d €.cI rcxrs droocl Rc.lizing thc ilparoce of F€seoilg € r-r il domoaa|cy. ffi*.iot*RIrcIrLAnoNW*W m-vicscrg ,mmgmttffi**#Hm *io tbr ktt€r. smm intqll|. ffiffiH$Fffi#ffiSffiffiffiffiY dcdgacY r€d' to sllf r"gulrtc' of tbc ar'{s cthc(! tb€ brordci$'rs Dctailod b.low 8rr 6o6c in cparilg: I . ItrtF salig ud obj'divity 2 F,sl'ing n draliq': TV Ncqs duaodr ourt Foyidc fa nqrtNliry by off.ring cqudity foi ell rtrccrcd pqrics, phycas ed sctqs itr aoy dirpulc q oiict to FE cot ttri. poiDt of yicw. Itoogh mut atity docs noa 8lwrl6 coEG dos! to giviog cqual 6pac. !o dl sidcs (ews f,hedr sh. srrjvc togivcfd, yiex, pdirts d$c rn i. pet'6lclr, ch-rd, tDurr ltire to-. o! th{ allcg.rions {E not lrdF.yld |6 frd atrd dEAa8 {l t|d coLgEd.r |!.cl ofguill 3. R4ctilg o crinc ld sdcgtr rds to.oet! GiE€ rDd yiolcocc [! Dot glaifcd: Tclcvisio rcrn hrs grcatcr rcach, .od |Iorl iDEcdiirc impact than ottcr fcor of ncdil ad ffi! Erlrs it aI rh. md€ nccc.Ea.y thd -hmcs cf,crrisc lE6tirt to GolEc that any Eport q vi$ds tro{dcrst do not indrt, gl6ify, incit , d F.itivcly dr{tc violcncc ald its !.rycurror* rcgardlcss of klcolosr * Spc"inc "onrot bo tat.a to- ho.dc.$ viruda thar ca bc prtjudicirl c mhonatcy. Eqoaffy,"-"hu6i in tho cportbg3ot (c/t of rioleocc &.. collccrinc d.irdivi.b.l) the &J of tdLo; -ri"r.o. U" ghociza[ bccaucc it oay havc a mirlceding q ,t Een;rirrg iqrct ol vicvrqs. Ncws ch8|!ds will cdsue thst sr.h tDcotrstructids will not cross booodrrics of good t stg a!.1 saNiuhty. Thi! irclod.s t.fillg {dcqor& F€ceticr vtilc Crowing ary viiel inscarce ofpdirl fc.r q suffcrio& rld visurls or d.trils of nabods of nriciL *f r,.- of asy tiDd dd will Eot ci!6s bourdtri.r of g@d t sic aDd d.clocy "ia 4. Dcfiction ofvioLocc a ifiinidlrioo 'qi.4 wooeo and ctildno: A5 atr daborrtio! of Poitr 3, rcws ch,.,ah vil cdsr! tbat no sot|,a o.juvcnib, rfro i6 s vidim ofscrud violcncc! egglssior|' Faomr, or h.r baefl r sirlcls to thc samc is shoru on tclovisio sittdt dur .ffo(t takq to coDcE l thq id{rtity. Ia rcportiry all c.6c6 of scxoel ercaulr, q incaccs tPhcrc thc F8olsf cha'actar c givacy otwd ae conc.(nc4 tb.ir p''R, picmree aDd oth€. det ils wiu Dot be troadcasy'divulgcd" Similsrly, thc idcatity of yictim! of chitd abu6c atrd juvcdlc &linquers will oot bc rcvcalc4 rnd thcir dcnrrcs wi]| bc mo.phrd to cotce.t their i&otity. 5. Scx and nudity: Nars q!g* wiU ctrry!€ rhrl 6.y do Dot shq,, rith.rt Eo.!hiD& trtrdiq' of thc E lc or feoalc fcm- Cbaucls pil dso not sbow cf,plicit ioagcs oi scxua rctiiity q rcxosl pqvcrsio$ s aats of serud violoocc likc rq|c q molcs*atiol, c ohow pormgr4hy,- c tho use of scf,ua||y suggcdivc lalgErgo. (As I qurlific( tmvcr, ctolots oe-lot crpcc&d to bc mdrlirtic c Fldilh srd tds sclf rgulEriol is titrEd rct af r|qal poficiD& bul dbcl at eDsuriDg h.t ovcrdy rsgrsssivc r.od cxplicir rc$ ed vi&ul, do Dor slip itrto bioed.arts). 6. Ptivacla 346 As r rul€ chrrmcls must n i iotudc otr Fivar. livGs, 6 pc.looal fsirs of individtals, uoleis th.G is r clc..ly cstrbtisb.d lrrgg dd i&otiSablc Fblic iatqEst for stc.h a brcdcast Thc lmd.dyitrg Filcipl€ 6at lcws clrlnds {bid. by i5 &ar tho ilrtllsio of thc priva& 6prcas, rrcords, EllfcaiFs, tdrphoDc oonvcrsrtiona atrd any othd mstdial eill rrot bc f6 6.h.i65 itrt.t!{r, but odly cttctr g.rrot d itr d|c Frblic ilt!ftsl Howqvc., it is dro udrrstood ftat lhr lrrrsuit d thc uulh ud the ocwr is [or pciblc frlugh th! FrdatiEiEd piocipic of pic pcrnisli@; hcocc doq st ppilg irdiyidtds or sultrqitic. fq lhc pqDorc of n ryt8dE ing ruy bc o!.d oily in lhG lcgct pt|rposc of F{blic hirar€t.. hihcr, in thc carc of milofr, ia rny hoadcart that intrudcs ou tbcir privry, tbc chrEcl sbo d ancNnpt, whrrc pos6iblc to lcct lho cd6rdt ofthe porcot or lcgrl guadim. Howcy.., fu drfcosc of thc ftuirc of Fivrcy t&Doa b. nircorfiu.d as the dooirl of access, ard tlic applies to all individurls, iucluditrg lh6c ir thc public cye aod Fblic F6@alitica. a dc hovcvc( qply i! its rotittty, {s p.r tbc Fovisi@s rdiocd rtovc, to tbci. chil&ta ed ki! $ho d! niddi ?. Ead&gc.iDg rrtio.l scqtrit : h tt€ usp of rly tlrDiDology c Bq,6, ftrt EpilscDt ltrdi8 .!d hdiro 8lrrtlgic itt rtsts, all wr,s c.hmcls will lsc spocift trrni@logy aod nrps oodtcd by hYi ud lDdiro aov€(loGot rdcs. CItc @idio! of the !r.q' of lhc t rritqy of bdir will r€Or(t officid guiib|i|lcd, .s dltailcd in ofFcirl lit tmrr). NcwE.tl'nttals wil also rrfraiB from auovilg kordc.st tiat @E[!gc lcccssiodsr gup6 ed inta&srs, or rcvcal iDfo ntioo ttrt Gddatrg.rs liv.6 ard latiooal sccndty. Hof,tcvcr, it b ir thc Ftblic htlrr{ ro bfodc.st iDrt rc6 of b(€a.h of Darioorl sc.uity atrd loopbolcs il ntioaal s.qrity ed rtporting tbc& crnoot bc co!fiN.d witb codangrring lrliodd sccurity. E. Rchtuing fr@ .dvocetirg a.ocoragirg srFstitid !trd occaltisro : Ncss chanDch will not bto{dcast atry matldal sat glorifie g|pcrstitioD and ocqrlti6m i! oy muatt h brudcaciry .Dy ncw! abot such g@r, Dcws charcls wil| .ho iss!. public disclaidcrs to .nnrrr th.t vics.cs atr lot oielcd into bclicviog c.n l*ing euch bclicfs a[d .ctivig. ThcrEfor rcw6 chlDrcb will lot hoodost "ar fict' myrbs about "sl{qDr$|rsl' !ris. smdtiqs ed 8!6ts, Frsmsl a social &vidiols 6 doyislt bchsvid, @d Ecrrotioos of tic srDc. Wlar€vcr rcf!&oc€8 rlr nradc lo lucll cisa6, tccrs channcls will ilsuc on rir rid6s/disclrim.rs/qrminSs to crtsurc that ludr bcliefs 6 cvcnts dr not ps58.d off "rt frt' sircc tnct ce h r{riodrl s.Dsibifitics. 9. Siirg ecrxiqs: Ar a guidiag priociple stirg and urdcr covcr opccati@s should bG 8 hst rcsott of nlws cilnncls ir 8| stt rr{rt to givc thc vicwrr comFdtc||sivc co\.enge of .ny ncws story. Ncws chdtrcls qrill trot dloe srf, rnd rL.zc ts a @s to carry out stiog opcrati@s,thc usc of !{clticr .!d psychdopic qrb6tdrc.6 G any act of violcocc, intimidatioo, or discrimiutio as a justifirbL m.Es irr thc tccadirg of s[y sting A.rrrion. Stitrt opcratioas, will ako $i& by thc Fircipl6 of iclf rc-gultioo Ecotioord abovg ald Dcc,s chermcls vill cosurp tlrat thcy will bc guidc4 as mcdioocd abovc, by an ideotifiablc I 3rl7 ldgcr public i[cnc!t- News qrill clEmds ar a grwd rulq GnsurB thal s]i||l oqatidrs aT c119 ctrt pty e tol for gcaing @lu,dyc *il-. ,r_s cnEttrl|lry, 1 dd; ;-- ald E r t[dt rs m &lihqae rlfratio of vioatr,"l c cdiriry, i itrirfF8irg do11c withthc nw-footaac i! ! way thrr ako alt .B * .irr.go_r" ti't ics.oa oDly a porti@ of thc ts b. "O - 10. Cqrigca&E: All ocws chanclr will kccpiag with ihc Firciplc of duc rccrrr*y ud i@trniditv. ctrEurc taat $gDlDc.Dt Eixtrls Eadc ir th. co|tlrc of .!y troaacaA is adfuorfcarcA con*&d @ iin i.rti.r.ty. .ir Cqrtcriom rhqld atso b"-r.n d,,hd ;;;;;-ri. "na ucy r|u-t aDoI! vtsrtr l!.dioo .od {! loa cece.lcd. ThL lfc lhc dc, p;iajdca T9-T ryin ry$ od nor jodh ko!4 rorvoia ay coqmtl o-d- .EFrnuon ot tbc o€Ts bo€ihdsling irdtsl| itr Indii. Vicwcr fccdbock pilt lJl_llcs6 O.tr+ otr |hcir vcbsit , cr..rc provirioo to rEccivc c@!|tm.rfccdbad. nrnocr ttry spccrDc vreirea cooplaiats wiu be rcsp@&d to. Itr thc cvcoa atry lows q*r€r tq coq[rift if fouod ro bc ruc ir will q,ill I ry".trc adoir ro trc arm @ jr ud rlspood h fullnas and frimcss ro thc vic*cr- fl Orc F",J:g: bl.-y ryft ltpar c.nid by rhc Nc*s cheucr,"rcrn, ii wil",icq,c"ltoCiJjr* ncpJil'triacss 4O $'ID@t r&p{alia[tJr to tbc vicc,E I il,, 31s 3a, (J I i i E ! o E 3t, 0, E N! : .9 o o Eg g D t, I € E -ro!t -a o oG! ; :i =61;!e E vt= Fg Jf\ FO 4 OE ( guUl't F o C' .i Ic ao o6 aa t E ac E I 3 !E .oa I. E E E 3 o i5 !E rf E c d i.. t o !E E ! o i-!! E a o. E E - !E !, .i!!l liE ! a =! :-? E q, o lF. = = G IJ ! ffi) it r-' 399 Abbreviations A,I.R - All India Reporter C.E.O - Chief Executive Officer c.w - Commission's Witness C.J.M - Chief Judicial Magistrate C,B.C.I.D - Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department C.D - Compact Disk c.o.o - Chief Operating Oflicer C.M.E - Continuing Media Education D.G.P - Director General of Police E.M.M.C - Electmnic Media Monitoring Centre I.T. Act - Information Technology Act K.U.W.J - Kerala Union of Working Joumaliss L.D.F - Lell Democratic Front M.D - Managing Director N.W.M.I - Network of Women in Media India N.B.A - News Broadcasters Association N.B.S.A - National Broadcasting Standards Authority o.M - Official Memorandum P,C.R - Production Control Room P.C.I - Press Council of lndia s.c. - Supreme Court S.I.T - Special Investigation Team S.P.C - State Police Chief w.Po - Writ Petition (Civit) 1' 400 Reference Books Press Laws And lvledia [thics, Anil K. Dixit, Reference Press, New Delhi - I l0 002. Media Ethics Cases and Moral Reasoning, Clifford G. Christians & Others. 2006 Dorling Kindersley (India) Private Ltd. Delhi -110092 Judiciary, A Panacea with no Cure ? Chandran, 201 T,Kerala Law Publishers. Kochi, 35 4) Joumalistic Ethics Moral Responsibility in the Media. Dale Jacquette, 2007, Dorling Kindersky (India) (P) Ltd., New Delhi - 110 Ol7. Mass Communications'fheory Denis McQuail, 1983 SAGE Publications India (P) Ltd., New Delhi - I l0 048. 6) Madhyamangalude Adinivesam Francis Karackat, Editor, 2005, Don Bosco College Joumalism Department, Karmur University 7) Ethics & Joumalism Karen Sanden, 2003,SAGE Publications India (p) Ltd., New Delhi - I l0 017 8) Understanding Media Marshall Mcluhan, 1964, Orders@at lanticbooks.com f*% i(xo.r'i-ro ){ a\-_xg 401 e) The Commissions of Inquiry Act, t 952 A Critical Analysis, 201 I B.M. Prasad & Manish Mohan, LexisNexis, Gurgaon - 122 002 l0) Media Law and Ethics, M. Neelamalar, 2010, PHI Leaming (P) Ltd., New Delhi - I l0 001 I l) Law of Press in India, Justice P.S- Narayana Gogia Law Agency, Hyderabad t2) The Due Process oflaw, Lord Denning, 1993 Aditya Books (P) Ltd., New Delhi. l3) Norms of Joumalistic Conduct,20l0 Edition, Press Council oflndia. New Delhi 14) Broadcasting Reform in India Media Law from a Global Perspective Monroe E. Price & Stefaan G. Verhulst l5) Law, Ethics and The Media, Dr. Sebastian Paul,20l5, LexisNexis, Gurgaon - l22OO2. Acts & Rules l) The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian Penal Code, 1860 4) lndian Evidence Act, I 872. 5\ lnformation Technology Act, 2000 I 402 6) The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 7) The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 as amended by (Amendment) Rules, 201 5 8) The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 9) The Telecom Regulatory Authority oflndia Act, 1997 l0) Communications Act" 2003 (uK) Case Law Referred to in the Report l. Ajay Goswamy, Petitioner vs.Union of lndia& Others, Respondents (2007) I SCC t43. 2. Anwar P.V., Appellant vs P.K. Basheer & Others, Respondenls (2014) l0 scc 473 3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union oflndia 201 7 (4) KLT | (SC) 4. S. Khushboo, Appellant vs- Kannammal & Another (2010) s scc 600. 5. Kehar Singh vs. The Srare (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883 6. Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar : Appellant vs. State of Maharashtra, Respondent (201 l) 4 SCC 143 7. R.Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State ofKerala- AIR 1989 Ker . 99 (F.B) 8. Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 Supp. SCC 6l I 9. Sanjoy Narayanan, Editor-in-Chie{ Hindustan Times & C)thers, Appellants vs. High Court ofAllahabad throueh Registrar General, Respondent (20 | I ) l3 SCC 155 I tJ 403 10. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govemment oflndia & Others, Appetlant vs. Cricket Association of Bengal & Others, ResPondents ( 1995) 2 SCC l6l I t. Shreya Singal : Petitioner vs. Union oflndia, Resoondent (20i5) 5 SCC l 12. Star Sports India Private Limited, Appellant vs. Prasar Bharati & Others, Respondents (2016) I I SCC 433 lJ. State of Haryana & Others : Appellants vs.Bhajan Lal & Others : Respondents 1992 Supp (l) SCC 335 14. Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra (1976) 2 SCC l7 tl' Acknowledgments At the end of my judicial career as Judge, Family Court on 24.10.2016, I had chosen to become a Faculty of Law to mould the lawyers of tomorrow. While so, I was appointed as the Commission of lnquiry. My thanks are due to the Government of Kerala for asking me to head this imporlant Commission of Inquiry. I hope that my report will be helpful to a further moulding of media law in our country. My thanks axe due to Shri. B.G. Harindranath, Law Secretary, Govemment of Kerala, Shri. C.P. Sudhakara Prasad, Advocate General of Kerala for their co-operation and to Shri. Jayasurya B' Senior Govemment Pleader who was deputed to assist the Commission of Inquiry- Shri. N. Nagaresh, Assistant Solicitor General of India was much helpful to the Commission in facilitating the obtaining of documents from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govemment of India for completing the Inquiry' Thanks are also due to late M.K- Damodaran, Senior Advocate, and Advocates Shri- O.V. Maniprasad, Shri C.Harikumar' Shri. Georgekutty Mathew and Shri. N. Ashok Kumar who appeared for the parties for their co-operation with the Commission to complete the inquiry expeditiously. My thanks are also due to Mrs- Ruby Christine, a Research Scholar in York University for fumishing valuable inputs on titles in the arca of media ethics and joumalism and also making available a copy of Lord Dennings Report' Thanks are also due to Shri. Adoor Gopalakrishnan and Dr' Sebastian Paul for contributing their valuable opinion. fjq My thanks to Shri A.G. Viswambharan (Retd. Joint Registrar, High Court of Kerala), Secretary to the Commission of lnquiry, Smt. K.V. Vinitha, Confidential Assistant, Shd . P.G. Rajagopalan, Bench Clerk Accountanl, Shri. Mahesh S. Menon, feon and Smt. Jessy Manin, P.T. . Sweeper, all of whom discharged their duties with dedication and efficiency. Without their hard work, the Commission could not have completed its work within time. Finally, my thanks to my wife Dr. Philomina and family members for their co-operation in the functioning of the full-fledged office of the Commission in the upstairs of my residence. This Report is dedicated to all who stand for the cause of freedom of the media with responsibility and ethical standards. t ii l,' :l CHAIRMAN amo Y corrr}spll oF l1{o Y( H) {E i IHOflY|L rE ADIUGAL. XAKKA AO P.C KOCH|.682 030